JUDGMENT - C. MOOKERJEE, J.:---The petitioner Jimmy Gazdar claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No. 88/0 situated at Sinquerim, Bardez Taluka withing Village Panchayat of Candolim, Goa. On December 18, 1986 the Panjim Planning and Development Authority had served upon the petitioner a notice under section 53 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, directing him to stop the construction of a bungalow and compound wall in Survey No. 88/0. He was also asked to show cause why action shall not be taken against him under the said Act. The notice alleged that he was carrying on development work without obtaining sanction under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act. On 27th December, 1981 the petitioner had showed cause. He claimed that he was holder of a licence for the said construction of his bungalow which was deemed to be granted in March 1986 to him in terms of Regulation 83(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulations 1962, by the Village Panchayat of Candolim and that the petitioner had commenced construction in March 1986. According to the petitioner the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and illegal. Thereupon the Planning and Development Authority had sought from the petitioner some clarifications. The petitioner sent a reply reiterating that the Planning and Development Authority, Panjim had no jurisdiction either to issue the show cause notice or to call upon him to stop construction of his bungalow.

2. On 25th March, 1987 the Member Secretary of Panjim Planning and Development Authority informed the petitioner the reasons for rejecting his contentions and that the Authority had decided to take action under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioner was asked to demolish the works commenced by him and to discountinue the use of the land immediately.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 52(2)(b) read with section 50 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The Chief Town Planner and Member Secretary, Goa Town and Country Planning Board at Panjims by his letter informed the appellant that the notices issued under section 52 of the Act were in accordance with law. The appeal had been, therefore, dismissed.

4. Thereupon the petitioner Jimmy Gazdar filed the instant writ petition before a learned Single Judge of Goa Bench of this Court. Pending admission, the learned Single Judge had granted interim orders in terms of prayer (c) of the petition. On 12th November, 1987 the writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the said rejection order. The Division Bench at Goa had admitted the said appeal and had granted interim orders in favour of the appellant. The state had preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the said appellate order of the Division Bench contending inter alia that the said appeal was not maintainable. In the meantime, the writ petition and also the Letters Patent Appeal were transferred to Bombay Bench.

5. The learned Advocate general of Goa has informed us that the State of Goa has withdrawn the aforesaid special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court. Both parties have submitted that they have no objection if instead of taking up the final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal the intire Writ Petition may be finally disposed of. We have accordingly heard at length submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties to the writ petition. We may also record that for disposing of this writ petition it is not necessary to decide whether or not the development of a land in Goa State could not be lawfully prohibited on the ground that such development was being undertaken within a specified distance from the high tide line It is also unnecessary to decide whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable or not.

6. In this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document