House passes bill amending land acquisition law

NT NETWORK
Posted on 2009-03-25
PANAJI- The Chief Minister, Mr Digambar Kamat has said that tourism was at the forefront of developmental activities in Goa, which also provides substantial employment to the locals and revenue to the state.
Replying to the queries raised by the members of the House during the discussion on the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Bill, 2009 aimed at saving the part of the Cidade de Goa hotel project from demolition following the Supreme Court orders, he said the government was convinced and yet fearful that demolition of the part of the hotel would not be in the interest of tourism and employment.
The bill was proposed keeping in view this settled position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court itself, he said.
The House passed the bill by voice vote when the Speaker, Mr Pratapsing Rane put it to the vote of the House. The opposition members, however, opposed the bill.
The Chief Minister further said that after studying the judgment it was found that there was the need to bring about harmony to Supreme Court’s interpretation and tourism development in Goa and as such the bill was introduced that proposes to remove restrictions from agreement, which prohibit the company to construct any buildings or structures.
Mr Kamat also said that in the case of Cidade, the land was specifically needed for the purpose of “tourism development project - construction of hotel at Curia Vainguinim, Taleigao” as stated in Section 4 and 6 notifications. This was also noted in the agreement. However, the language of another clause was worded in a manner that it was interpreted as prohibiting construction, he said and added that this was not the intention. As per the intention government stand is reflected in its affidavit.
Stating that it was necessary in public interest and promotion of tourism that hotel rooms, which are readily available, should be retained and not demolished since the construction was made after obtaining permissions from the concerned authorities/departments, he went on to add that the amendment enabled the state government to modify agreements, wherever necessary, so that keeping in view the purpose for which the acquisition was made, if any difficulty arises in implementation of the agreement, it may be suitably modified.
He also said that only constructions with permissions would be protected. Demolishing of such buildings constructed on land acquired for promotion of tourism would not be development of tourism.
The Chief Minister further said that Supreme Court has itself held in several cases that if the basis on which any decision is taken by it, is altered by legislation with retrospective effect and action taken is validated by legislature, then such procedure is permissible’ and does not conflict with the decision of the court.
“There is a tendency amongst some of us to jump to conclusions that amending the law either by way of ordinance and or act in the wake of a decision of the High Court or Supreme Court amounts to overruling that court or its judgment and is therefore like an affront or insult to the judiciary,” he said adding: “Let us remind ourselves that under our Constitution, judiciary interprets laws. Courts do not enact laws. They always give us interpretation and sometimes point out any vagueness that crop up from time to time.”
After all, providing employment to its unemployed while continuing to protect the employed is necessary in the interest of our state, its economy, law and order and people’s well-being. Amendments give room to the government to alter other agreements in keeping with the times.
Earlier, Mr Manohar Parrikar, the leader of the opposition, said the government has not applied it mind while drafting the bill and pointed out that the government was taking away the right to prevent any construction on land acquired for specific purpose by the current bill. He said that no justification was giving while promulgating the ordinance.
Stating that the government has hurried through the process in promulgating the ordinance first and then rushing to bring in the bill and not applied its mind properly, he also expressed fear that the bill might not be able to serve the purpose it is intended and described the government initiative as an exercise in futility.
Ms Victoria Fernandes, Mr Francisco D’Souza, Mr Damodar Naik and Mr Laxmikant Parsekar also participated in the discussion.