The interests of justice will be served if the Petition itself is treated as representation by both the Village Panchayat and the Planning Authority, and the authorities were directed to dispose of such representation on its own merits and in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Ms. Zulfiya Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manish Salkar, the learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, who appears along with Mr. Gauresh Malik, the learned Counsel for the intervenors.

2. The petitioners are the residents/owners of the construction put up by respondent no. 6 in the suit property. Earlier, when the respondent no. 6 attempted to put up the construction in the plot, which was reserved as parking lot, the petitioners objected to the same. In pursuance of such objections, such construction was stopped or rather could not be put up. The Petition instituted by the petitioners in this regard was disposed of.

3. The petitioners instituted the present Petition, when they noticed after few years that the respondent no. 6, once again, put up the construction in the same plot, which was reserved as a parking lot. The petitioners contended that as respondent no. 6 had already executed sale deeds in their favour, thereafter, had no right to put up any construction in the suit property.

4. The intervenors in this matter have pointed out that the revised plans were submitted by respondent no. 6 and the same had been approved, thereby relocating the parking lot. Mr. Nigel Costa Frias pointed out that the petitioners suppressed this fact and therefore, the interim order made by this Court may be vacated and the Petition may be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. On 11.08.2014, we made the following order:

"Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Silva, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1,3 and 4. Respondent no.5 though served, none appears on his behalf.

3. Perusal of affidavit filed by respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No. 530 of 2008 and order dated 18/02/2008 passed by Division Bench of this Court in said Writ Petition make it abundantly clear that it was the stand of respondent no.2 that the construction of respondent no.6 was unauthorised one.

4. Respondent no.2 thereafter passed demolition order dated 30/01/2010 directing the respondent no.6 to demolish unauthorised construction. The order of respondent no.2 Village Panchayat is challenged by respondent no.6 by filing Panchayat Appeal No. 57 of 2010 before the Additional Director-I of Panchayat and obtained order of status quo regarding existing construction.

5. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner complains that despite of this order of status quo the respondent no.6 is continuing with the further construction illegally on parking lot. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 states that the petitioner no.1 is not co-operating in identifying the illegal construction of the respondent no.6. He also seeks sometime to file additional affidavit in this regard.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is adjourned to 29/09/2014.

7. Meanwhile, the Additional Director of respondent no.1 at Panaji, Goa is directed to disposed of Appeal no. 57 of 2010 filed by respondent no.2 as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Needless to mention that the said appeal be disposed of by hearing the concerned parties.

9. Till the returnable date, the respondent no.6 shall maintain status quo with regard to the parking and excess area in the approved plan."

7. Thereafter, on 24.03.2015, we issued Rule in this Petition and directed the interim order dated 11.08.2014 to continue until further orders. Till date, the interim order is in operation.

8. For the present, we are not satisfied that this is a case of suppression of any material particulars. This Petition is based on the premise that from 2007 onwards they have become the owners of the suit property, the respondent no. 6 has no right or authority to make any construction on the su