AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Deshmukh, J.—We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
This matter was listed before this Court for admission on 30.07.2009. On that day, we had issued notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 returnable on 13.08.2009 for final disposal. Reason for such issuance of notice is obvious in the case on hand. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition somewhere on 23.07.2009. Annexure ''E'' (page 26) is the copy of the earlier Order passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 157/95 on 08/07/2002. There, two persons were shown as Petitioners, one Mr. Sameer D. Fadte and another Mr. Arvind Shirodkar. In this Writ Petition, out of those two persons, Mr. Sameer D. Fadte is the Petitioner. In due course of time, respondents were served. This Petition was before this Court on 26.08.2009 and, on that day, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought two weeks time for filing of reply. Accordingly, the matter was deferred to 07.09.2009. Record shows that affidavit in reply dated 07.09.2009 was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and affidavit in rejoinder dated 08.09.2009 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner. That is how this matter came up today before this Court.
In view of the earlier Orders, we have heard the learned Counsel at great length.
Rule, made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, we have heard the Petition finally.
It reveals from the Order of the earlier Writ Petition No. 157/95, that the present Petitioner, had approached this Court and nature of the said Writ Petition was in the Public Interest Litigation, challenging the allotment of plot No. 4 of Lot No. 156 out of Survey No. 102/2 located at Penha de Franca by the Serula Communidade to the Respondent No. 1, being illegal and void. Our Order, has recorded the fact situation obtained at the time of disposal of the earlier Writ Petition. There, from Para 3 of the Order, it appears that the interim relief was in operation till 1995. There, allottee was respondent No. 1 - Mr. Jose Philip, the then Collector, Panaji, State of Goa. On behalf on respondent No. 1, the Collector, Mr. Jose Philip, his Advocate, presented original letter in the Court, which was taken on record. It was informed by the said Collector-respondent No. 1 in that Writ Petition to this Court that his application for allotment of said plot dated 20.06.88 would be treated to have been withdrawn. Allotment in his favour was thus stands withdrawn/canceled, and it was declared by this Court that the plot in question stands reverted back to the Communidade of Serula-Respondent No. 3, who is also now party-respondent in this Writ Petition. The date of this Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 157/95 is 08.07.2002. Para 6 of that Order further records the statement of the Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Collector, Panaji, Goa, that respondent No. 3-Communidade of Serula can enter into possession of the said plot at any time without notice to the respondent No. 1 with existing structure i.e. compound wall standing thereon. With this, same Writ Petition No. 157/95 came to be disposed off.
The Petitioner in this Writ Petition has given the history of the allotment of plot in question to District Collector of Panaji, Goa, and Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 157/95. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has given steps required to be taken, in view of the provisions of the Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.04.1961 (Code of Communidades). After being taken steps which are 7 according to contention of the Petitioner, he has made a statement in Para 4 that as a Gaonkar, he applied to the Governor General for the allotment of plot No. 4 of Survey No. 102 of Penha da Franca Village on 20.08.1991. This application was obviously through the Administrator of Communidade of Bardez, Mapuca. In Para 5, statement is made by the Petitioner that no objections were raised or received from anyone. The Administrator sent the file to the Communidade for its opinion and the Communidade gave its opinion in favour of the Petitioner in its meeting held on 01.01.1995 and referred the file to the Administrator with its opinion. That opinion is matter of record at annexure ''D'' with this Petition. According to the Petitioner, on receipt of this opinion from the Communidade, the Administrator was required in view of the provisions of the Code of Communidade to forward the file to Governor General for its approval. He has made a statement that after disposal of Writ Petition No. 157/95 in favour of the Petitioner, plot in question stands reverted back to the Communidade and it was expected of the Administrator to process the file of the Petitioner as the Petitioner had completed all the formalities. File was to travel from the Administrator to the Governor General for his approval. Grievance of the Petitioner is that he had approached to this Court against the District Collector, Panaji, Goa, and that was the reason the Petitioner was made to run from pillar to post by the State Administration i.e. Revenue Department. Copies of correspondence are annexed to the Petition i.e. annexure ''F'' collectively.
In Para 8, it has been pleaded by the Petitioner, that after untiring efforts by the Petitioner, he had received communication from the Administrator dated 13.11.2008 informing the Petitioner of the letter of the Under Secretary (Revenue) dated 16.04.2007. By this letter, Petitioner was advised and directed to approach the Communidade for the plot and then it is for the Communidade to allot the plot. Grievance raised by the Petitioner is that by this letter, the Petitioner is placed back to square one i.e. the position obtained somewhere in the month of August 1991. With these grievances, the Petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 i.e. Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Administrator of Communidade of Bardez, Mapusa and Communidade of Serula, affidavit in reply is filed. This affidavit is sworn in by one Mr. Agnelo Lobo, the Communidade of Serula, which is at page 40 of the compilation. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 points out this affidavit in reply and more specifically Para 4. There the reference is made to the disposal of Writ Petition No. 157/95, pertaining to allotment of plot in question. It has been stated that after the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 157/95 on 08.07.2002, this plot was vacant and, accordingly, it was declared vacant by issuing notification dated 18.07.2003. It has been also pointed out in Para 4 that there was no Order for disposal or allotment of the plot in Writ Petition No. 157/95 in favour of the Petitioners therein. After publication of this Notification, further statement is made in Para 4 that said plot was applied by one Shri Stanley Raymond Lobo, Mr. Dilip Dhumaskar and Mr. Shivdas N. Tari. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Para 4 points out that the file of Shri Stanley Raymond Lobo seeking allotment of the plot was placed before the general body meeting of the Communidade which was held on 22.08.2004 and the general body rejected the application thereof. In Para 5, statement is made that one Mr. Dilip Dhumaskar, who had also applied for the same plot by the application dated 01.08.2003, had objected to the application of Mr. Lobo and said application of Mr. Dhumaskar is still pending. In Para 6, it is further averred that the Petitioner has not objected or applied for allotment of the said plot after it was declared vacant by publishing notice in Official Gazette in the year 2003. Further statement is made that it is seen from the letters produced by the Petitioner that only in the year 2006, the Petitioner made representation before the Collector and Administrator. Further statement is made at the close of Para 6 that Petitioner has not approached the Communidade which is seen from his own letters produced with the Petition.
During the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also invited our attention to annexure ''F'' a communication signed by the Under Secretary (Revenue-I) dated 16.04.2007 addressed to the Collector, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa. This letter communicates that the Petitioner Mr. Sameer Fadte may be requested to approach the Communidade to consider his request for allotment of the said plot to him and it is for the Communidade of Serula to decide his request. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that in view of this communication by the Revenue Department, Procedure under the Code of Communidade had to be gone into once again and, for that purpose, Petitioner need to approach to the Communidade. In other words, because of this letter, the Petitioner''s request could not be considered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that if Petitioner approaches to the Communidade, his request will be considered in view of the provisions of the Code of Communidade.
We have also heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate. In the case on hand, stage for consideration by the respondent No. 1 did not reach. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that unless file is received from respondent Nos. 2 and 3, no further action/decision could be taken by respondent No. 1.
We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have examined the contention raised on behalf of the parties. Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner from the compilation of the Writ Petition, (page 49), points out a communication dated 16.04.2009. This communication is addressed to the President of Communidade of Serula under the signature of the present Petitioner, copies have been forwarded to the Administrator of Communidade, North Goa, Secretary of Revenue, Government of Goa, Collector, North Goa and Hon''ble Governor, Raj Bhavan, Dona Paula. It is pertinent to note from this page 49, that acknowledgment has been signed by one person on 31.07.2005 and designation mentioned is the Clerk of Communidade of Serula. There is one more endorsement in terms of acknowledgment of copy of this letter signed by some person, however, name and designation is not available. Date seen is 16.11.2004. Third endorsement of acknowledgment of page 50 of this communication is received date 16.11.2004 by some person working in the office of Communidade, Administrator of Communidade, North Goa, Mapusa, Goa.
The entitlement of the Petitioner, is not challenged by any of the respondents. It is manifest from the record that Petitioner is longing for a plot to which he is entitled from 20.08.1991. We are not repeating the events from the date of filing of the earlier Writ Petition No. 157/95 since all these material events are part of this Order more specifically in forgoing paragraphs. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have also examined the provisions of the Code of Communidade. In our view, provisions from Article 329 to Article 335, are relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for allotment of the plot in question. It is not possible for us to countenance to the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that after decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 157/95, the Petitioner did not approach to the Communidade concerned. It is also not possible for us to accept the submission of Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that no objection was raised by the Petitioner and has approached after disposal of the Write Petition for the first time in 2006. The communication to the District Collector, North Goa, by the Under Secretary, Revenue pointed out to us from page 38, it appears that the District Collector, had been directed to inform the Petitioner that he should approach to the Communidade. Since we have examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, the Petitioner after disposal of the Writ Petition by this Court, was not required to do anything more. The steps which were required to be taken by the Petitioner were taken long time back. Virtually, all formalities which are required to be undergone in view of the Code of Communidade were undergone. At the costs of repetition, it may be stated that the petitioner''s earlier Writ Petition No. 157/95 was allowed by this High Court on 08.07.2002. There, in that Judgment, the statement of the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, the then District Collector, Panaji, was recorded that the possession of the plot in question may be entered into by the Communidade concern. Despite these admitted facts, the letter dated 16.04.2007 (page 38) annexure ''F'', by the Under Secretary (Revenue) writes such absurd letter to District Collector, North, Panaji, Goa. In this letter, reference to Order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 157/95 dated 08.07.2002 even remotely is also not made. This speed of the Administration (Revenue Department of the State of Goa) is of vedic age speed, in the era of Information Technology. It is high time for the Administration to come out of hibernation. Such lackadaisical attitude of the Administration is multiplying the woes of the citizen/common-man. The system creates hurdles since it knows that short-cutters will pay to cross them. End of the day, citizen/common person is the victim or sufferer. This letter dated 16.04.2007 (Page 38), has in fact, rubbed the salt into the wound of the Petitioner, who is longing for a plot from 20.08.1991. This communication, annexure ''F'' has, in our view, multiplied the harassment travails to the Petitioner. It is a classical case, showing the cost in terms of 14 years paid by the petitioner, only because the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 157/95 against a bureaucrat, the then District Collector, Panaji, State of Goa.
In our view, Petitioner is entitled for prayer Clause (A) in this Writ Petition i.e. issuance of direction to the respondent No. 2 to forward the application of the Petitioner with the opinion of the Communidade to the Governor General for his further consideration in view of the provisions of the Code of Communidades. Considering the facts and circumstances, we wish to lay down some calender for this purpose i.e within three weeks from today Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall forward the file in view of the provisions of the Code of Communidade to District Collector, North Goa. State of Goa is respondent No. 1. Even though District Collector, North Goa, is not party to this proceedings. We further direct District Collector of North Goa to process the file within three weeks on receipt of the file from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 1, on receipt of the file, shall take appropriate decision within four weeks, thereafter. All respondents and authorities concerned shall adhere to this calender. Liberty in favour of the Petitioner to move this Court, in case of breach or non-adherence to this calender.
Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
Authentic copy of this Judgment is permitted to the parties on demand and as per usual procedure.