The main legal point established in the judgment is that a quasi-judicial authority must provide clear and explicit reasons to indicate due consideration of the points in controversy, and the need for recording reasons is greater at the original stage of the decision.

Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27/10/2015 passed by the Town and Country Planning Board (Board for short), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1974 (the Act, for short) has been dismissed thereby confirming the demolition notice dated 17/10/2011 issue by the South Goa Planning and Development Authority (Authority, for short).

3. The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.4 a site inspection of the residential premises of the petitioner was carried out on 10/8/2011, in which the Authority found that there was an illegal construction of a building made, which consisted of a ground plus one and a ground plus two structure having the ground floor area of 8.50 x 4.10 sq.mtrs =34.85 sq.mtrs and 8.00 x 5.80 mtrs.= 46.40 mtrs. ( total ground floor area of 81.25 sqmtrs) constructed of laterite walls with RCC frame structure, part of which was found to be within the road widening area and without maintaining the necessary set backs. The board issued a show cause notice dated 30/8/2011. The notice was replied by the petitioner no.1 on 8/9/2011 in which it was denied that any illegal construction has been made. It was contended that the copy of the complaint filed by the respondent no.4, the site inspection report, the panchanama/sketch was not supplied. No site inspection was carried out on 10/8/2011. It is the material contention that the structure referred to in the show cause notice is a mudkarial house which is in existence since last more than 60 years and is reflected in the survey plan. The dwelling house along with appurtenant land has been purchased under the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The road is being widened now while the house is in existence prior to the construction of the road and therefore there was no question of maintaining any set backs.

The Authority by a notice dated 17/10/2011 had directed the structure to be demolished failing which the Authority was to take action for demolition.

4. The petitioner no.1 challenged the same before the Board in appeal under section 52 of the Act which was dismissed on 22/11/2011. The petitioners challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition No.766/2013, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Board to pass a reasoned order. After remand, the Board vide order dated 27/10/2015 has again dismissed the appeal, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

5. I have heard Smt. Agni, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 3, Shri Pereira, the learned counsel for the Respondent no.2 and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel for the Respondent-4/intervenor.

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that although the appeal was remanded to the Board for passing a reasoned order, the Board has ended up passing yet another order, which cannot be said to be reasoned. It is submitted that the Board was expected to pass a well reasoned order which would show that the contentions raised by the petitioners have been properly considered. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. And anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (2010) 13 SCC 427, in order to submit that the necessity of giving reasons, is paramount and any quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority, passing order affecting the rights of the parties, must speak. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the house of the petitioner is a mudkarial house purchased under the Mundkar's Act, in pursuance of the judgment of the Mamlatdkar dated 16/3/20