{"id":243018,"date":"1985-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985"},"modified":"2017-01-26T12:38:24","modified_gmt":"2017-01-26T07:08:24","slug":"fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","title":{"rendered":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 736, \t\t 1985 SCR (2) 937<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGUSTAVO RANATO DA CRUZ PINTO & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  736\t\t  1985 SCR  (2) 937\n 1985 SCC  (2) 152\t  1985 SCALE  (1)394\n\n\nACT:\n      Land  Acquisition\t (Companies)  Rules,  1963  Rule  4-\nWhether compliance of Rule 4 is mandatory before issuing the\nNotification under  Section 4  of the  Land Acquisition Act,\n1894 in\t respect of acquisition of land for the propose of a\ncompany-Practice  and  Procedure-Where\tseveral\t contentions\nfactual and  legal are\turged in a case and where there is a\nscope of  an appeal  From the  decision of  the Court,\tHigh\nCourts and  Courts below should not merely rest its decision\non one single point.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       The   appellant\tmade  an  application  on  the\t15th\nNovember, 1978\tunder chapter  VII of  the Land\t Acquisition\nAct, 1894 for the acquisition of the lands earlier purchased\nby Respondent  No. 1  herein. The  Government issued  on the\n29th October,  1980 a  notification for\t acquisition of\t the\nsaid land  under section 4 of the Act which was published in\nthe Government\tGazette dated 30th October, 1980. Respondent\nNo. 1  objected to  the said  notification. Subsequently the\nGovernment bled\t an enquiry under section SA of the Act and,\nafter submitting  a report  in March  1981, on or about 10th\nApril 1981, the Deputy Collector issued notice to Respondent\nNo. I  that enquiry  under rule\t 4 of  the Land\t Acquisition\n(Companies) Rules 1963 would be held on the 15th April, 1981\nto which  the latter  filed his\t objections on\tmerit by his\nletter dated 4th May, 1981. On 26th October, 1983, agreement\nwas  executed  between\tthe  government\t and  the  acquiring\ncompany. A  notification under\tsection 6  that the  land in\nquestion was  needed  for  the\tpurpose\t of  development  of\ntourism, was  published in the Government Gazette dated 27th\nOctober 1983.\n      Respondent  No. 1,  thereupon, filed  a petition under\nArticle\t 226   of  the\tConstitution  challenging  the\tsaid\nnotifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition\nAct. The  High Court  of Bombay (Goa Bench) quashed the said\nnotifications  on   the\t first\t ground\t alone\tnamely,\t the\nnotifications were  bad for prior non-compliance with Rule 4\nof the\tLand Acquisition  (Companies) Rules  1963, and noted\nthat it\t was not  necessary to\tdeal with  other grounds  of\nchallenge. Hence the appeal by special leave-\n938\n      Allowing\tthe appeal  and remitting the case back, the\nCourt\n^\n      HELD:  1. ON a correct interpretation of the scheme of\nthe Land  Acquisition Act,  it is not necessary that enquiry\nunder rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963\nmust in all cases precede issuance of the notification under\nsection 4 of the Act. In an appropriate cash if it is\n possible,  enquiry under  rule 4(1)  may be held before the\nissuance of  the notification under section 4. But it is not\na mandatory requirement that it must precede the issuance of\nthe notification under the Act. [949B-C]\n      RAJA  Ram Jaiswal\t v. Collector,\tAllahabad & Another,\n(1980) 2 ILR Allahabad 269; conclusion approved.\n\t     Babu  Barkya Thakur  v. State  of\tBombay<\/a>\t(now\nMaharashtra), AIR 1960 SC 1203 at 1206, followed.\n\t   Abdul Husein Tayabali & Ors. v. State of Gujrat l\nOrs., [1968] I SCR 597. explained and distinguished.\n\t    2.1. A consepectus of the provisions of the Land\nAcquisition Act\t as well  as  Land  Acquisition\t (Companies)\nRules  1963   indicate\tthat   there  are  two\tpurposes  of\nacquisition of\tland-one being\tfor the\t public purpose\t and\nother for  the purpose\tof a company, In case of acquisition\nfor company,  the  appropriate\tGovernment  has\t to  satisfy\nitself that  such acquisition  is needed and would be useful\nalso for public need. [943E-F]\n       2.2  Land  Acquisition  proceedings  begin  with\t the\npublication of\tthe preliminary notification under section 4\nof the\tLand Acquisition  Act, 1894. When the acquisition is\nfor a  company the  Purpose has\t to  be\t investigated  under\nsection SA  (by hearing\t objections and\t disposing them)  or\nunder section  40 necessarily  after the  notification under\nsection 4  of the  Act. Under section 6 if the Government is\nsatisfied after\t considering the  report, if any, made under\nsection 5A  that any  particular land  was needed for public\npurposes or  for a  company a  declaration shall  be made to\nthat  effect   subject\tto   certain  conditions  stipulated\ntherein. Sub-rule  4 of\t Rule  4  of  the  Land\t Acquisition\n(Companies) Rules 1963 provides that no declaration shall be\nmade by\t the Appropriate  Government under  section 6 of the\nAct unless  (i) the appropriate government had consulted the\ncommittee and  had considered the report submitted under the\nsaid rule  and the report if any, submitted under section SA\nof the\tAct and\t (ii) further any agreement under section 41\nof the Act executed by the Company.\n      To  complete the\tacquisition proceedings notification\nunder section 6 of the Act is required. Section 6 of the Act\nenjoins that  the government  has to  be satisfied  that the\nland is needed for public purpose or for a company and after\ndeclaration is\tmade the  acquisition is  complete after the\naward is  made and  possession of the land is taken when the\nland vests  under section  16 in  the government  free\tfrom\nencumbrances. Section 4\n939\ndoes  not   require  as\t  such\tthis   satisfaction  of\t the\ngovernment.  The   government  might   initiate\t acquisition\nproceedings \"if\t it appears\"  to the government that land is\nneeded either  for public  purpose or  for a  company.\tThat\nmight appear  to the  government by  enquiry aliunde or on a\npetition or  application made  by any  company. Whether\t the\nneed  is  proper  or  genuine  that  can  be  found  by\t the\ngovernment subsequently\t after notice under section 4 of the\nAct. An\t enquiry under\trule 4 might be made before issuance\nof the notification under section 4 of the Act but it is not\na sine\tqua non\t for the  issuance of the notification under\nsection 4  to have an enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules. The\nscheme and  the language  of the  Act and  the Rules  do not\nindicate that. Therefore, section 4 as such does not require\ngovernment to  be satisfied,  it is sufficient if it appears\nto the\tgovernment that\t land is  needed either\t for  public\npurpose\t or  for  a  complain.\tIt  may\t so  appear  to\t the\nGovernment either by independent inquiry or from reports and\ninformation received  by the  government  or  even  from  an\napplication by the company concerned. [943H; 944A-F]\n      2.3  It is  undoubtedly true that a notification under\nsection 4  can be  issued after\t enquiry under\trule 4.\t But\nunder the  scheme of  the Act,\tthe converse is not correct,\ni.e.,  the   enquiry  under   rule  4  must  always  precede\nnotification under  section 4  of the  Act,  though  enquiry\nunder rule  4(1) must  precede action under section 6 of the\nAct. Further  certain matters  which are required to be done\nunder rule  4 cannot  be done  before because the officer or\nthe person authorised by him would have no authority, unless\nnotification under section 4 is issued. [945G-H; 946A]\n\t   Rule 4(4) does not prohibit or forbid issuance of\nnotification under section 4 of the Act unless rule 4(1) has\n been compiled with. If it is now insisted that there should\n   be no issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act\nbefore enquiry under rule 4 then this sub-rule has to be re-\n written by stating that no notification under section 4 and\n   no declaration under section 6 issued or made as the case\n may be unless the requirements mentioned in clauses (i) and\n  (ii) of sub-rule (4) of rule 4 have been complied with. On\n the contrary, it will be contrary to the scheme and purpose\n of the acquisition proceedings because the compensation for\n the acquisition has to be fixed under section 23 of the Act\n keeping the market rate as or the date of F the issuance of\n the notification under section 4 in view. If it be that the\n       enquiry as contemplated by rule 4 should also precede\n issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act then that may\n    upset the fixation of the market value and escalation of\n   price with the passage of time between publication of the\n  notification under sections 4 and 6 would make acquisition\ndifficult.\t\t\t\t\t    [945A.D]\n       3.   In\ta   matter  of\tthis  nature  where  several\nContentions factual  and legal\tare urged  and when there is\nscope of  an appeal  from the  decisions Of the Court, it is\ndesirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago\nto avoid  delay and protraction of litigation that the court\nshould, when  dealing with  any matter\tdispose of  all\t the\npoints and not merely rest its decision on one single point.\n[950A-B]\n940\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 504 Of
\n1985<\/span>
\n      From  the Judgment  and Order  of the  High  Court  of
\nBombay, Panaji\tBench (Goa)  dated the\t26th June,  1984, in
\nwrit Petition No, 8 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
\t     B.\t Zaiwala, Anil B. Divan, Usgaonkar, Ravinder
\nNarain, and Aditia Narayan, for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      S.C.  Desai, M.M\tAbdul Khader,  Naunit  Lal,  Kailash
\nVasdev, Mrs.  Vinod Arya,  and Miss  A\tSubhashini  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI, J.\tSpecial leave  granted. This
\nappeal filed  by M\/s  Fomento  Resorts\tand  Hotels  Limited
\nraises the short question as to whether compliance with rule
\n4 of
\n the  Land Acquisition\t(Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter
\ncalled the  Rules) is necessary before issuing notifications
\nunder  section\t 4  of\t the  Land   Acquisition  Act,\t1894
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act).\n<\/p>\n
      It  appears that the land in question was purchased by
\nGustavo Ranato\tda Cruz Pinto hereinafter referred to as the
\nland owner  and the  original respondent  No. 1\t on 10th  of
\nMarch, 1978. The original respondent No. 2 and the appellant
\nherein on  the 15th November, 1978 made an application under
\nChapter 7  of the  Act\tfor  the  acquisition  of  the\tsaid
\nproperties. The\t government issued on the 29th October, 1980
\nnotification in\t respect  of  the  land\t in  question  under
\nsection 4  of the  Act which was published in the Government
\nGazette dated  30th October,  1980.  The  land\towner  being
\nrespondent No.\t1  to  this  appeal  objected  to  the\tsaid
\nnotification under  section 4.\tSubsequently government held
\nenquiry under section 5A of the Act and the Deputy Collector
\nsubmitted the report to the Government in March, 1981. On or
\nabout 10th April, 1981 the Deputy Collector issued notice to
\nrespondent No.\t1 that\tenquiry under  rule 4  of the  Rules
\nwould be  held on  15th April,\t1981. The  respondent No.  I
\nfiled his  objections on  merit by the letter dated 4th May,
\n1981. On  26th October, 1983, agreement was executed between
\nthe government\tand the\t acquiring company  that the land in
\nquestion was  needed  for  the\tpurpose\t of  development  of
\ntourism. the  government issued notification under section 6
\nof the\tAct which  was published  in the  government Gazette
\ndated 27th October, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
941<\/span><\/p>\n
      The  petition under  Article 226\tout  of\t which\tthis
\nappeal\tarises\twas  filed  in\tthe  Bombay  High  Court  by
\nrespondent No.\tI challenging  the said\t notifications under
\nsections a  and 6  of the Act. The High Court of Bombay (Goa
\nBench) quashed\tthe said notification under sections 4 and 6
\nof the\tAct only  on the ground that enquiry under rule 4 of
\nthe Rules  was not  held prior\tto  the\t notification  under
\nsection 4  of the  Act. The  propriety 1 and validity of the
\nsaid decision  of the High Court are under challenge in this
\nappeal. The  High Court,  however, noted  that the  impugned
\nnotification had  been challenged  on several  other grounds
\nbut in the view it had taken on the first ground namely that
\nthe notifications  under sections  4 and  6 of the Act being
\nbad for\t prior non-compliance  with rule 4 of the Rules, the
\nHigh Court felt that it was not necessary to deal with other
\ngrounds. The  petition succeeded  before the  High Court and
\nthe notifications  under sections  4 and  6 of\tthe Act were
\nquashed. This  appeal is  filed against\t the judgment of the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Under  the scheme\t of the Act, it is necessary for the
\npurpose of acquisition of land first to issue a notification
\nunder section  4 of  the Act,  whenever it  appears  to\t the
\nappropriate government\tthat land  in any locality is needed
\nor likely to be needed for any public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      The  purpose and\tobject\tof  the\t notification  under
\nsection 4  of the  Act have  been explained by this Court in
\nthe case  of Babu  Barkya Thakur  vs. State  of ,Bombay (now
\nMaharastra) and others thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The purpose of the notification under section
\n     4 is  to carry  on a  preliminary investigation  with a
\n     view to  finding out  after necessary survey and taking
\n     of levels,\t and, if  necessary, digging  or boring into
\n     the sub-soil  whether the\tland  was  adapted  for\t the
\n     purpose for  which it  was sought to be acquired. It is
\n     only under\t S. 6 that a firm declaration has to be made
\n     by Government  that land  with proper  description\t and
\n     area so  as to  be identifiable  is needed for a public
\n     purpose or\t for a\tCompany. What  was a  mere  proposal
\n     under S.  4 becomes  the subject  matter of  a definite
\n     proceedings for acquisition under the Act. Hence, it is
\n     not correct  to say that any defect in the notification
\n     under S. 4
\n(1) AIR 1960 S. C. 1203 at 1208.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
942<\/span><\/p>\n
     is\t fatal\t to  the   validity  of\t  the\tproceedings,
\n     particularly when\tthe acquisition is for a Company and
\n     the purpose has to be investigated under S. 5A or S. 40
\n     necessarily after\tthe notification  under S.4  of\t the
\n     Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This Court emphasised that when the acquisition is for
\na Company the purpose has to be investigated under section .
\nA or  section 40  necessarily after  the notification  under
\nsection 4 of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings begin
\nwith  the   publication\t of  the  preliminary  notification.
\nSection 5A enjoins hearing of the objections and disposal of
\nobjections. Sections  6 of  the Act  provides  that  if\t the
\ngovernment is  satisfied after\tconsidering the\t report,  if
\nany, made  under section  5A, that  any particular  land was
\nneeded for  public purpose,  or for a Company, a declaration
\nshall be  made to  that effect subject to certain conditions
\nmentioned in  the various  sub-sections of  section 6 of the
\nAct. After  declaration under  section 6,  section 7 enjoins
\nthe Collector to take order for acquisition of land. Various
\nsteps  for   the  actual   acquisition\tare   enumerated  in
\nsubsequent section  of the  Act which need not be set out in
\ndetail. Section\t 16 empowers  taking of the possession after
\nan award  is made  under section  11 and thereafter the land
\nshall vest in the government free from all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is important\tto note\t that section  23 of the Act
\ndeals with  the matters\t to  be\t considered  in\t determining
\ncompensation for acquisition of land and ht enjoins that the
\nmarket value  should be\t determined as\ton the\tdate of\t the
\npublication of\tthe notification  under section\t 4. In other
\nwords section 23 pegs the market value of the land as on the
\ndate of\t the notification  under section  4 as\tone  of\t the
\nfactors to  be taken  into consideration  in determining the
\ncompensation to\t be paid.  Part VII  of the  Act deals\twith
\nacquisition of\tland for  companies. Section  41 of  the Act
\nprovides that  if the  appropriate government  is  satisfied
\nafter considering the report, if any, of the Collector under
\nsection 5A,  or on  the report\tof  the\t officer  making  an
\nenquiry under  section 40 of certain matters, the details of
\nwhich are  not necessary for the purpose of appeal to be set
\nout, it shall require the Company to enter into an agreement
\nwith  the   appropriate\t  government   providing   for\t the
\nsatisfaction  of  the  appropriate  government\tfor  certain
\nmatters enumerated  in different  sub-sections of section 40
\nThe  said   provisions\tneed  not  be  set  out\t in  detail.
\nEssentially the\t satisfaction and agreement with the company
\narc to ensure that the
\n943<\/span>
\nland in\t question will\tbe put\tto such\t use which  will  be
\nuseful to the A public.\n<\/p>\n
      Rule  3 of  the Rules provides for the constitution of
\nthe  Land   Acquisition\t Committee.   Rule   4\t is   headed
\n“Appropriate Government\t to  be\t satisfied  with  regard  to
\ncertain matters\t before initiating proceedings” and sub-rule\n<\/p>\n
(l) of\trule 4\tlays down  certain matters  about which\t the
\nappropriate  government\t  has  to   be\tsatisfied  when\t the
\nacquisition is\tfor the\t Company. Sub-rule  (4) of rule 4 of
\nthe Rules  provides that no declaration shall be made by the
\nappropriate government under section 6 of the Act unless (i)
\nthe appropriate\t government had\t consulted the committee and
\nhad considered\tthe report submitted under the said rule and
\nthe report,  if any,  submitted under  section SA of the Act
\nand (ii)  further any  agreement under section 41 of the Act
\nexecuted by  the Company.  Rule S  of Rules  deals with\t the
\nmatters which  are to be provided for in the agreement under
\nsection 41  of the  Act. Rule  6 similarly  deals  with\t the
\nadditional matters  which might be provided in the agreement
\nunder section  41 of the Act. Rule 7 provides for submission
\nof periodical  reports. Rule  8 of  the Rules deals with the
\nconditions under  which sanction is to be given for transfer
\nof land. Rule g deals with special provisions in relation to
\ncertain Companies.  It is  not necessary  to  discuss  these
\nrules in detail for the present purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t conspectus of\tthe provisions of the Act as well as
\nthe  Rules   indicate  that   there  are   two\tpurposes  of
\nacquisition of land-one being for the public purpose and the
\nother for  the purpose\tof a Company. In case of acquisition
\nfor Company,  the  appropriate\tgovernment  has\t to  satisfy
\nitself that  such acquisition  is needed and would be useful
\nalso for  public need.\tRule 4\tof the\tRules  provides\t for
\nsatisfaction of\t the appropriate  government with  regard to
\nvarious matters before acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned judges  of the  Bombay High Court were of
\nthe view that the enquiry under rule 4 was necessary for the
\ninitiation of  the acquisition\tproceedings to\tbe satisfied
\nthat acquisition was necessary for the Company.\n<\/p>\n
      We  are unable  to  accept  this\tconclusion  for\t the
\nfollowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n
(i) To\tcomplete the  acquisition proceedings,\tnotification
\nunder
\n944<\/span>
\nsection 6  of the  Act is  required. Section  6 of  the\t Act
\nenjoins that  the government  has to  be satisfied  that the
\nland is needed for public purpose or for a Company and after
\ndeclaration is\tmade the  acquisition is  complete after the
\naward is  made and  possession of the land is taken the land
\nvests  under   section\t16   in\t the  government  free\tfrom
\nencumbrances. Section  4  does\tnot  require  as  such\tthis
\nsatisfaction  of   the\tgovernment.   The  government  might
\ninitiate acquisition  proceedings “if  it  appears”  to\t the
\ngovernment that\t land is needed either for public purpose or
\nfor a  Company. That  might  appear  to\t the  government  by
\nenquiry aliunde\t or on a petition or application made by any
\nCompany. Whether  the need  is proper or genuine that can be
\nfound by  the government  subsequently\tafter  notice  under
\nsection 4  of the Act. An enquiry under rule 4 might be made
\nbefore issuance\t of the\t notification under section 4 of the
\nAct but\t it is\tnot a  sine qua\t non for the issuance of the
\nnotification under section 4 to have an enquiry under rule 4
\nof the Rules. The scheme and the language of the Act and the
\nRules do  not indicate that. As noted before, section 4 does
\nnot require  government to be satisfied, it is sufficient if
\nit appears  to the government that land is needed either for
\npublic purpose\tor for\ta Company.  It may  so appear to the
\ngovernment either by independent enquiry or from reports and
\ninformation received  by the  government  or  even  from  an
\napplication by the company concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  6 undoubtedly  requires satisfaction  of\t the
\ngovernment  and\t enquiry  contemplated\tunder  rule  4\tmust
\nprecede publication  of the  notification under section 6 of
\nthe Act. So also there must be before section 6 notification
\nan enquiry  under section  5A. The  p significant pointer to
\nthe scheme  is provided\t in sub-rule  (4) ‘of  rule  4,\t the
\nmaterial portion of which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “(4) No  declaration shall  be made  by the
\n     appropriate
\n Government under section 6 of the Act unless-\n<\/p>\n
\t (i)   the appropriate\tGovernment has consulted the
\n     Committee and has considered the report submitted under
\n     this rule\tand the\t report,  if  any,  submitted  under
\n     section 5A of the Act; and\n<\/p>\n
\t (ii)  the agreement under section 41 of the Act has
\n     been executed by the Company.”\n<\/p>\n
945<\/span><\/p>\n
\t   The said sub-rule significantly does not prohibit
\nor forbid  A issuance of notification under section 4 of the
\nAct unless  rule 4  (l) has been complied with. If it is now
\ninsisted that  there should  be no  issuance of notification
\nunder section  4 of the Act before enquiry under rule 4 then
\nthis sub-rule  has to  be  re-written  by  stating  that  no
\nnotification  under  section  4\t and  no  declaration  under
\nsection 6  issued or  made as  the case\t may be\t unless\t the
\nrequirements mentioned\tin clauses  (i) and (ii) of sub-rule
\n(4) of lure 4 have been complied with. We find no warrant to
\ndo that.  On the contrary, it will be contrary to the scheme
\nand purpose  of\t the  acquisition  proceedings\tbecause\t the
\ncompensation for  the acquisition  has\tto  be\tfixed  under
\nsection 23 of the Act keeping the market rate as on the date
\nof the issuance of the notification under section 4 in view.
\nIf it  be that\tthe enquiry as contemplated by rule 4 should
\nalso precede  issuance of  notice under section 4 of the Act
\nthen that  may upset  the fixation  of the  market value and
\nescalation  of\tprice  with  the  passage  of  time  between
\npublication of\tthe notifications  under sections  4  and  6
\nwould make acquisition difficult.\n<\/p>\n
      An argument was sought to be built on the basis of the
\nheading\t of   rule  4  which  stipulates  that\t“Appropriate
\nGovernment to  be satisfied  with regard  to certain matters
\nbefore initiating  acquisition proceedings”. It is true that
\nbefore\tthe   initiation  of  the  acquisition\tproceedings,
\ngovernment had\tto be satisfied of certain matters mentioned
\nin the\tvarious sub-rules  of rule  4  as  well\t as  various
\nprovisions  of\t the  Act.   Though  preliminary  steps\t for
\ninitiation of  acquisition  proceedings\t are  necessary\t and
\nthose can only be taken by the authority of the notification
\nunder section  4 as mentioned in the decision of Babu Barkya
\nThakur v.  State of  Bombay<\/a> (now  Maharashtra)\tand  Others,
\n(supra) the  initiation of  the acquisition  proceedings for
\nall practical  purposes begins\tafter section 6 notification
\nSatisfaction is\t necessary for\tproceeding  for\t acquisition
\nunder section  6 of  the Act  but section 4 unlike section 6
\ndoes not  require for  the issuance  of\t the  notice  to  be
\nsatisfied but it might act only “when it appears” to it that
\nthe land  is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
      Reading  the Act and the Rules and keeping in view the
\nscheme of  the Act,  it is  apparent, in  our opinion,\tthat
\nbefore the  issuance of\t section 4 notification, there is no
\nrequirement  as\t  such\tof  compliance\twith  the  procedure
\ncontemplated by rule 4 of the Rules. We are therefore unable
\nto subscribe to the view that
\n946<\/span>
\nenquiry by  rule 4 must precede the issuance of notification
\nunder section  4 (1)  of the  Act. Furthermore\tas indicated
\nbefore certain\tmatters which  are required to be done under
\nrule 4\tcan not\t be done  because the  officer or the person
\nauthorised  by\t him  would   have   no\t  authority   unless
\nnotification under section 4 is issued.\n<\/p>\n
     Reliance was  placed before  the Bombay  High Court and
\nbefore us  in support of the judgment of the High Court on a
\ndecision of  this Court in the case of Abdul Husein Tayabali
\nand Ors.  v. State  of\tGujarat\t and  Ors.<\/a>  (1).  There\t the
\ncontention before  the Court  was that\tMaster\twas  only  a
\nSpecial Land  Acquisition  Officer  and\t not  the  Collector
\nwithin the  meaning of rule 4. Furthermore, it was urged, in
\nany event,  the notification in question did not ‘specially’
\nappoint him  but was  a general notification authorising all
\nthe Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed
\nnot only  before the date of section 4 notification but also
\nthose who  would be  appointed\tin  future  It\twas  further
\ncontended that\tnotification did  not “appoint”\t but  simply
\nauthorised him\tto perform  the functions  of the Collector,
\nthe State  Government had not given any directions to him to
\nmake a\treport as  required by rule 4; therefore the enquiry
\nheld by\t him under  that rule and the report made by him was
\ninvalid\t and   consequently  no\t notification  either  under
\nsection 4  or section  6 could\tbe validly  issued.  It\t was
\nurged, therefore,  the section\t6  notification\t was  issued
\nwithout complying  with Part  VII of the Act and without the
\nvalid consent  of the  State Government\t as  required  under
\nsection 39(iii),  that the acquisition was made malafide and
\nwithout application  of mind  to the  relevant facts and the
\nacquisition did not involve any public purpose and the State
\ngovernment was\tbound to  give an opportunity Of being heard
\nto the\tappellants before taking a decision under section 5A
\nparticularly when  the report made by Master was against the
\nacquisition.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this connection our attention was drawn to section
\n39 of  the Act\twhich provides that provisions of sections 6
\nto 37  (both inclusive) shall not be put into force in order
\nto acquire  land for  any Company  unless with\tthe previous
\nconsent of the appropriate Government nor unless the Company
\nshall have  executed the  agreement therein after mentioned.
\nThis  section,\t in  our   opinion,  has  no  relevance\t for
\ndetermining whether  to be  a  proper  acquisition,  enquiry
\ncontemplat-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1968] 1 SCR 597.\n<\/p>\n
947<\/span><\/p>\n
ed under  rule 4  must precede\tissuance of the notification
\nunder section  4 of  the Act.  In the decision of this Court
\nreferred to  hereinbefore, this question did not really fall
\nfor consideration  because there  was compliance with rule 4
\nbefore issuance\t of the\t notification and the infirmities of
\nthe enquiry  under rule\t 4 urged on behalf of the appellants
\nwere not established.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was urged before this Court that the enquiry under
\nrule 4\twas a  quasi-judicial enquiry  and therefore  it was
\nincumbent on Master to give an opportunity to the appellants
\nto be  heard. This  Court was  of the  view  that  the\trule
\nprovide that  an officer  conducting the enquiry has to hear
\nthe Company before making his report. Whether he was also to
\nhear the owners of the land or not did not fall for decision
\nin those  appeals as  the officer  had in fact given such an
\nOpportunity to\tthe appellants\tby serving them with notices
\nand recorded  the statement  of such  of them  who cared  to
\nappear before  him. It\twas then  contended that the enquiry
\nunder rule  4 had  to beheld  after the\t notification  under
\nsection 4  was issued  and  not\t before\t and  therefore\t the
\nenquiry held by Master was not valid. This Court observed at
\npage 604  of the  report “We do not find anything in rule or
\nin any\tother  rule  to\t warrant  such\ta  proposition.\t The
\nenquiry, the report to be made consequent upon such enquiry,
\nobtaining the opinion of the Land Acquisition Committee, all
\nthese intended\tto  enable  the\t Government  to\t come  to  a
\ntentative conclusion that the lands in question were or were
\nlikely to  be needed  for a  public  purpose  and  to  issue
\nthereafter  section   4\t notification\tIn  our\t opinion  no
\nobjection to  the  appointment\tof  Master  to\tperform\t the
\nfunctions of  the Collector  under section  3(c) or  to\t his
\ncompetence to  make the\t enquiry and the report under rule 4
\nor their legality can be validly made.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  our opinion  when this  Court\t observed  that\t the
\nreport of  the enquiry under rule 4 was a factor to be taken
\ninto  consideration  and  “to  issue  thereafter  section  4
\nnotification” was  by general observation. It is undoubtedly
\ntrue that a notification under section 4 can be issued after
\nenquiry under  rule 4.\tBut under the scheme of the Act, the
\nconverse is  not correct  i.e. the enquiry under rule 4 must
\nalways precede\tnotification under  section 4 of the Act. In
\nthat decision  this Court analysed the importance of section
\nSA and\tit is  after considering the report under rule 4 and
\nreport under  section SA  that notification  under section 6
\nwill be issued. It is undoubtedly true that
\n948<\/span>
\nenquiry under  rule 4(1)  must precede\taction under section
\nbut we\tdo not\tfind reading the said decision of this Court
\nin the\tcontext of  the\t facts\tand  circumstances  and\t the
\ncontentions urged in that case that this Court laid down any
\nproposition  that  enquiry  under  rule\t 4(1)  must  precede
\nissuance of  notification under section 4. Indeed as we have
\nmentioned  before,   notification  under   section  4  would
\nfacilitate the matters to be inquired under rule 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
      Reliance\twas also  placed on  certain observations in
\nthe case  of General  Govt.  Servants  Co-operative  Housing
\nSociety Ltd”  Agra v.  Wahab Uddin  & Ors. Etc. Etc. 1 There
\nthe scheme  of the Act was analysed and what were matters to
\nbe required  under rule\t 4 of the Rules were mentioned. This
\nCourt observed at pages 53-54 of the report as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “No  declaration  shall  be  made  by\t the
\n     appropriate Government  under  section  6\tof  the\t Act
\n     unless  the   Committee  has   been  consulted  by\t the
\n     Government and  has considered  the report submitted by
\n     the Collector under section SA of the Act. In addition,
\n     under clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of rule , the Company
\n     has to  execute an\t agreement under  section 41  of the
\n     Act. The  above consideration  shows  that\t rule  4  is
\n     mandatory; its  compliance is no idle formality, unless
\n     the directions enjoined by rule 4 are complied with the
\n     notifications  under  section  6  will  be\t invalid.  A
\n     consideration of  rule 4 also shows that its compliance
\n     precedes the  notification under  section 4  as well as
\n     compliance of section 6 of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t may   be  borne   in  mind  in\t that  decision\t the
\nnotification under  section 6  was quashed  but notification
\nunder Section  4 was  not quashed  though observations\twere
\nmade about  the purpose and the role of compliance with rule\n<\/p>\n
4. Reliance was placed on the following observations at page
\n54 of the report:\n<\/p>\n
     “A\t consideration\t of  rule  4  also  shows  that\t its
\n     compliance precedes the notification under section 4 as
\n     well as compliance of section 6 of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It  appears to  us that the reference to rule 4 in the
\ncontext in  which it  was made was inadvertent. What perhaps
\nthe Court want-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1981] 3 S.C.R. 46.\n<\/p>\n
949<\/span><\/p>\n
ed to  convey was  the need  of compliance  of entering into
\nagreement  A   under  section  41  before  the\tissuance  of
\nnotification under  section  6\tof  the\t Act.  Otherwise  it
\nappears that  there was no enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules
\nbefore issuance\t of the notification under section 4 yet the
\nnotification  under   section  4   was\tnot   quashed.\t The
\nobservation then in any event is obiter.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the scheme  of the Act, we are of the opinion that
\non a  correct  interpretation,\tit  is\tnot  necessary\tthat
\nenquiry under  rule 4  must in all cases precede issuance of
\nthe  notification   under  section  4  of  the\tAct.  In  an
\nappropriate case  if it is possible, enquiry under rule 4(1)
\nmay be\theld before  the issuance  of the notification under
\nsection 4.  But it  is not  a mandatory\t requirement that it
\nmust precede  before the  issuance of the notification under
\nsection 4.\n<\/p>\n
      Our  attention was  drawn to  a Bench  decision of the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt in  the case  of Raja  Ram Jaiswal  v.
\nCollector, Allahabad  & Another\t (1), where it was held that
\nit would  not be  right to  say that  a case where a company
\nmakes  an   application\t for  acquisition  of  land  to\t the
\nCollector it was obligatory that the provisions of rule 4(1)
\nmust be\t complied with\tbefore the  Collector could  issue a
\nnotification under  section  x(1)  of  the  Act.  With\tthis
\nconclusion we  are in  agreement, though  factually the case
\nwas slightly different in the sense that there the Collector
\nwas authorised\tto make a notification under section 4(1) of
\nthe Act\t and not  the State  Government\t as  in\t this  case.
\nTherefore, though  there may  be in certain cases compliance
\nwith rule 4(1) of the Rules it was not mandatory that before
\nissuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act there
\nshould be an enquiry in compliance with rule 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
      In  the premises\tin so  far as  the Bombay High Court
\nheld that  non-compliance with rule 4 before the issuance of
\nnotification under  section 4(1)  of the  Act is  bad is set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
      As  mentioned hereinbefore,  since the issuance of the
\nnotifications was  challenged on  several other\t grounds and
\nthe High  Court had  not decided those grounds, we remit the
\nmatter back  to the  High Court\t to decide those grounds- We
\nrequest the  High Court to dispose of those grounds as early
\nas possible.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1980] 2 ILR Allahabad 269.\n<\/p>\n
950<\/span><\/p>\n
\t     In\t a  matter  of\tthis  nature  there  several
\ncontentions factual  and legal\tare urged  and when there is
\nscope of  an appeal  from the  decision of  the Court, it is
\ndesirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago
\nto avoid  delay and protraction of litigation that the court
\nshould, when  dealing with  any matter\tdispose of  all\t the
\npoints and not merely rest its decision on one single point.
\n\t  In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the
\nmatter is  being remitted  back to  the High Court, costs of
\nthis appeal  will abide\t by the\t result of  the\t High  Court
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed\n951<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 736, 1985 SCR (2) 937 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD Vs. RESPONDENT: GUSTAVO RANATO DA CRUZ PINTO & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1985 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243018","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\"},\"wordCount\":4015,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\",\"name\":\"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985","datePublished":"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985"},"wordCount":4015,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985","name":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T07:08:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fomento-resorts-and-hotels-ltd-vs-gustavo-ranato-da-cruz-pinto-ors-on-20-february-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors on 20 February, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243018","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}