AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had claimed the following reliefs:
a) For an appropriate writ, order or directions, calling for the records of the case from the Respondents and upon perusing the same, to quash and/or strike down communication dated 01.08.1994, or any other orders, whereby land admeasuring 90,000 square metres surveyed under No. 206/1/A, Anjuna, has been allotted to respondent No. 7 and 8.
b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Chief Town Planner to initiate action under Sections 16(A) and 17 (B) against the respondents No. 7 and 8 for carrying out development inconsistent with the Regional Plan and cutting of hilly and sloppy land in survey No. 206/1/A Anjuna.
c) For a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents No. 1 to 6 to appropriate action to demolish construction and development carried out by the respondents No. 7 and 8 in the property surveyed under No. 206/1/A, Anjuna and thereafter, restore the said land to the Communidade of Anjuna
On 11.08.2008, this petition was placed before us and Mr. Lawande, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 made a statement that the respondent No. 3, Communidade of Anjuna has resolved that the grant of 90,000 sq.mtrs. land and Joint Venture Agreement dated 04.07.1993 in favour of the respondent No. 7 be revoked. Mr. Lawande sought time to file affidavit placing on record the decision to the above effect.
The affidavit is now filed by the respondent No. 3, a copy of which has been handed over to the petitioners'' Advocate so also to that of the respondents No. 7 and 8.
A perusal of paragraphs 3 to 6 of this affidavit discloses that the Communidade decided that grant be revoked so also the Joint Venture Agreement dated 04.07.1993.
In the light of the oral statement made on 11.08.2008 and reiterated on affidavit by respondent No. 3, it is apparent to us that grant and Joint Venture Agreement are no longer in operation and stand revoked according to respondent No. 3.
Considering the statement made earlier and the affidavit filed today, Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 7 and 8 contends that respondents No. 7 and 8 desire to challenge all actions and decisions of the Communidade purporting to revoke the grant and the Joint Venture Agreement and all pleas in that behalf be kept open so also liberty be granted to respondents No. 7 and 8 to challenge the above recorded action.
Once we take the affidavit of the Communidade dated 19.08.2008 on record and accept the statements therein, it is clear that all that we are noting are subsequent developments in the matter. In view of these subsequent developments, the cause of action in the petition does not survive. However, that does not mean that we have upheld the action of the Communidade. As and when any challenge is raised to this action at the instance of the aggrieved party, the Court will consider the rival contentions on merits. Needless therefore, to state that all pleas of the respondents No. 7 and 8 so also of the petitioner in that behalf are kept open.
Considering the statements made on affidavit before us, it is clear that the petitioners do not have any subsisting grievance, once the Communidade makes the above statements, the petition does not survive.
Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that once the Communidade''s resolution is placed on affidavit, then the approval of the Government to their earlier actions also does not survive. In our view, all that we have recorded is that the Communidade granted the land and entered into a Joint Venture Agreement. It is the Communidade which decided to revoke both. Once the Communidade takes such decision, whether the Government''s approval will survive or not are all matters of academic nature. Whether Government''s approval is necessary or Government''s approval already granted having not been allegedly revoked are all matters which must be gone into proceedings that may be instituted by the respondents No. 7 and 8 or other aggrieved parties. We need not go into these aspects in detail. Once the Communidade has taken above decision, the controversy in the petition is really rendered infructuous and in the light of the statement recorded by us based on the affidavit of the respondent No. 3, the petition is disposed off.
Just as we have kept open the contentions with regard to the decision now taken by the Communidade, we also do not wish to express any opinion about the remedies available to the petitioners for enforcing the decision of the Communidade and it is open to them to approach such authorities and seek relief pursuant to the Communidade''s decision, in accordance with law. All the pleas with regard to enforcement of the decision of the Communidade, now placed on record , are also kept open.
In the light of the disposal of the petition, the interim order granted by this Court does not survive and is accordingly vacated. However, vacation of the interim order is subject to what is observed hereinabove.