Panaji: The Bombay high court on Thursday stayed the final land acquisition declaration for the proposed Borim bridge and its approach roads on NH-566, and scheduled the matter for final hearing on Oct 12.Occupants and agricultural tenants of lands at Loutolim and Borim approached the high court challenging the proposed alignment, alleging it passes through cultivated khazan lands, areas within the CRZ, and land provisionally identified as private forest.The court did not grant interim relief against the Oct 19, 2023 notification related to land acquisition issued under provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.Pending final disposal of the petition, the court ordered that the operation and implementation of the Oct 11, 2024 declaration issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act shall remain stayed. It directed authorities not to take physical possession of the land, begin construction or developmental activity on the notified lands, or create contractual or third-party rights based on the Section 3D declaration.The court further directed that the award under Section 3G and any other steps taken after the Section 3D declaration would be subject to the final outcome of the petition, and that no coercive steps to take possession or implement such actions shall be taken while the order remains in force.However, the court clarified that its order does not prevent the respondents from pursuing CRZ, forest, or other statutory permissions; conducting surveys that are lawful and non-invasive; finalising plans, estimates, and tender documents; or inviting and processing tenders, at their own risk.The order also allows other administrative preparatory work that does not affect possession, change the character of the land, or create third-party equities. The court specified that no work order authorising on-site construction or developmental activity shall be acted upon without the court’s leave.“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. We have kept in mind the caution stated by the Supreme Court of India in N G Projects Limited v/s. Vinod Kumar Jain. At the same time, public interest also requires compliance with environmental safeguards and the law governing compulsory acquisition. Any interim protection must therefore be limited to what is strictly necessary,” stated the bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar.
