Mr. Menino Fernandes and his wife and constituted Power of Attorney and Smt. Clementina Moreas vs Additional Director of Panchayats, Office of Additional Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat of Santa-Cruz and Mr. William A. Gonsalves

A.P. Lavande, J.—By this petition the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 21/12/2004 passed by Additional Director of Panchayats - II at Panaji in Panchayat Appeal No. 139 of 2004 by which the Additional Director of Panchayats has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 against the judgment and order dated 24/09/2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats (North) in Case No. DDPN/ST.CRUZ/TIS/12 /2004. The petitioners sought from respondent no. 2 construction licence for construction of residential house and compound wall in the property bearing survey no. 65/4-B of Village Santa Cruz. Since no decision was communicated within a period of 30 days, the petitioners preferred an appeal to Deputy Director of Panchayats (North) in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section (66) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ( ''The Act'', for short). The Deputy Director of Panchayats by judgment and order dated 24/09/2004 allowed the appeal and directed respondent no. 2 to issue written permission to the petitioners herein by complying with necessary formalities within a fortnight, failing which the petitioners were given liberty to proceed with the construction of residential house and compound wall but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or any Rules or Bye-laws under the Act. This order was challenged by respondent no. 2 by filing an appeal which has been allowed by the Additional Director of Panchayats. The appellate authority while allowing the appeal has given certain directions to the parties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent nos.1 and 2, we are of the considered view that the present petition is liable to allowed on the short ground. It is the case of the petitioners that the appeal preferred by respondent no. 2 purportedly u/s 66 (7) of the Act was not maintainable at the instance of the Panchayat. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Village Panchayat of Sancoale and Another Vs. M-Tech Developers Ltd., .

In our considered view, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred herein above. In view of the judgment in the case of Village Panchayat of Sancoale (Supra), the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 was not maintainable and as such the impugned judgment and order dated 24th September, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats is illegal and without jurisdiction. On this short ground alone the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

The petitioners have also claimed compensation from respondent no. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation to the petitioners.

In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II in Appeal no. 139/04 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 24th September, 2004 is restored.

The respondent no. 2 shall comply with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats within a period of six weeks. Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.