Daijiworld Media Network - Panaji
Panaji, Jul 31: The Bombay High Court on Thursday stayed the final land acquisition declaration for the proposed Borim bridge and its approach roads on NH-566, while fixing the matter for final hearing on October 12.
The petition was filed by occupants and agricultural tenants of land in Loutolim and Borim, who challenged the proposed alignment of the project. They alleged that the route passes through cultivated khazan lands, areas falling under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), and land provisionally identified as private forest.
The court did not grant interim relief against the October 19, 2023 notification issued under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, for initiating land acquisition.
However, pending final disposal of the petition, the bench stayed the operation and implementation of the October 11, 2024 declaration issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act.
The court directed authorities not to take physical possession of the notified land, begin construction or developmental activities, or create any contractual or third-party rights based on the Section 3D declaration.
It further ordered that the award under Section 3G and any other steps taken after the Section 3D declaration would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition. No coercive action for taking possession or implementing such measures can be taken while the interim order remains in force.
At the same time, the court clarified that its order would not prevent authorities from obtaining CRZ, forest and other statutory permissions, carrying out lawful and non-invasive surveys, finalising project plans, estimates and tender documents, or inviting and processing tenders.
The court also allowed administrative preparatory work that does not affect possession, alter the nature of the land or create third-party interests. It specified that no work order permitting on-site construction or development activity can be acted upon without the court's permission.
"We are conscious that the proposed bridge is a public infrastructure project. Such a project should not be delayed by an interim order as a matter of course. The court must consider public inconvenience, increase in cost and the other prejudice caused by delay," the bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar observed.
The bench said it had considered the caution issued by the Supreme Court in N G Projects Limited versus Vinod Kumar Jain, while also emphasising that public interest requires compliance with environmental safeguards and laws governing compulsory acquisition.
"Any interim protection must therefore be limited to what is strictly necessary," the court said.