AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Rohit Bras De sa for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats in Panchayat AppealNo. 144/1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 66 (7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and further directing that the order dated 05.07.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats South Goa, Margao, be implemented within aperiod of 90 days failing which, the Respondent/Panchayat has been directed to demolish the same and also the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Panaji dismissing the application, seeking extension of time of 90 days.
By the impugned order dated 02.07.2008, the Additional Collector, Panaji has dismissed the appeal preferred u/s 66 (7) of the Act against order dated 05.07.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats directing the petitioner to demolish the illegal structure of an area of 8.30 x 7.50constructed in survey No. 113/01 within a period of 30days. The Additional Director has found no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the said appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal with a direction to implement the order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time on the ground that after the order dated02.07.2008 was passed, he had applied for regularisation of the construction. The Additional Collector by order dated 23.09.2008 has dismissed the application on the ground that the application wasn''t maintainable. Aggrieved by the said two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Mr. R. De sa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Additional Director of Panchayats ought to have granted further extension of 90 days since the petitioner had applied for regularisation of the construction and in case the Panchayat found that the part of construction was not in accordance with the rules, then to order to demolish the part of the illegal construction. According to the learned counsel, the Additional Director of Panchayats has jurisdiction u/s 239-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act to grant extension of time. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case extension of time sought for was granted by the Deputy Director of Panchayats. In support of his submission that even after the order of demolition is passed, the party can ask for extension of time on the ground that the party has sought regularisation of the structure, reliance has-been placed upon the judgment dated 01.07.2004 passedby the learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo. 558/2003. Mr. De Sa lastly submitted that this Court may extend the time which was sought before the Additional Director of Panchayats.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court. Panchayat Appeal No. 144/1999 was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 which came to he disposed of by order dated 02.07.2008. The petitioner had sufficient time to file an application forregularisation during this period and request the Additional Collector to take decision only afterregularisation application was decided by the Panchayat. For the reasons which are not disclosed in the petition, the petitioner chose not to make such an application but filed an application forregularisation only after the order dated 02.07.2008came to be passed. On merits, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said order dated02.07.2008. In so far as the order dated 23.09.2008passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat srefusing to extend time by 90 days, on the ground that such an application was not maintainable, I also find that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the authority. Mr. De Sa has placed reliance on Section 239-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act in support of his submission that there is power to extend time u/s 239-A of the Act. Section 239-A of the Act vests on the Officers appointed under the Act with the powers vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the following limited purposes, namely:
a) Proof of facts by affidavit,
b) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath,
c) Compelling the production of documents,
d) Awarding costs.
In my considered opinion, Section 239-A of the Act does not entitle the Additional Director of Panchayats to extend the time fixed by it, while passing an order disposing the appeal u/s 66(7) of the Act. The judgment in Writ PetitionNo. 558/2003 upon which reliance has been placed doesn''t lay down that the authorities under the Act have powers beyond what are expressly stipulated in Section 239-A of the Act. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner in waiting for a considerable period of time for the decision in the appeal without applying forregularisation of the illegal structure also irrelevant .It is only after the order has been passedby the Additional Collector dismissing the appeal that the petitioner chose to file an application forregularisation. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector under the Act nor extend the time as sought by the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the petition is summarily rejected.