AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Shri Anthony D''Silva, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. None appears for respondent No. 2, though served.
Rule.
With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 8-7-2010 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 against the Order dated 22-5-2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, Bardez u/s 66(7) of the Goa Panchayats Raj Act, 1974 (Act, for short).
On 11-5-2007, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint to respondent No. 1 in respect of an illegal construction alleged to have been carried out by the petitioner herein. After hearing the petitioner, the said Order was revoked. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 preferred an appeal u/s 66(7) of the Act to respondent No. 1 which has been allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 8-7-2010. By the impugned Judgment and Order, respondent No. 1 has quashed the Order dated 22-5-2007 and directed respondent No. 1 to demolish the illegal construction carried out by the petitioner.
Shri Anthony D''Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 66(6) of the Act, the B.D.O. at the most could have referred the case to the Deputy Director of Panchayats, and he could not have passed the Order dated 22-5-2007. Shri D''Silva, learned Counsel further submitted that it was for the Deputy Director of Panchayats to decide the case upon such reference, and, therefore respondent No. 1 by passing the impugned Judgment and Order has directed demolition of the construction thereby depriving the petitioner from challenging the Order of the Deputy Director of Panchayats in the event, the Deputy Director of Panchayats were to pass adverse Order against the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order be quashed and the matter be referred to the Deputy Director of Panchayats to take appropriate decision in terms of Section 66(6) of the Act.
Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 stated that in view of the legal position they have no objection if the matter is referred to the Deputy Director of Panchayats to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 66(6) of the Act. Shri Thali, learned Counsel further submitted that specific time be given to decide the case since the illegal construction has already been carried out by the petitioner.
Shri D''Silva, learned Counsel is right in contending that respondent No. 1 could not have straightaway ordered demolition of the alleged illegal construction carried out by the petitioner in appeal preferred against Order passed by the B.D.O. In terms of Section 66(6) of the Act, the B.D.O. was bound to refer the case to Deputy Director of Panchayats who has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
In view of the above legal and factual position, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 8-7-2010 passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside, and the Deputy Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji, is directed to decide the case in terms of Section 66(6) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Panchayats shall decide the same expeditiously, and in any event on or before 30-11-2010, after hearing the parties. The parties either personally or through their advocates shall appear before the Deputy Director of Panchayats on 1-10-2010 at 3.00 p.m.
Needless to mention that the Deputy Director of Panchayats shall decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned Order passed by respondent No. 1.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.