The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate 'sufficient interest' or title in the property for seeking development permission under Section 44 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, read with the Goa, Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K. Shinde, J. - This Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questions the legality of a development permission, under Section 44 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and Rules, 1976 (Planning Act, 1974 and Rules of 1976, for short), granted by the Greater Panaji Planning and Development Authority- respondent no. 2 (PDA, for short) and construction license issued by the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP, for short), to the existing Confraria of the chapel-respondent no. 4, situated at Dona Paula, Panaji City bearing Chalta Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 of P.T. Sheet No. 193.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that, late Anita Dias Souza was owner of properties bearing Chalta Nos. 7, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of P.T. Sheet No. 193, amongst other chalta numbers situated at Dona Paula (hereinafter referred to as the said properties). Anita bequeathed the said properties to the petitioner vide Public Will executed on 13.02.2006, before the Notary Ex-Officio in the office of the Civil Registrar cum Sub-Registrar, drawn in Book No. 153 at page no. 92V onwards. Anita by way of Deed of Sale dated 13.07.1981, had transferred and sold to respondent no. 4, chalta no. 15 admeasuring 185 square metres, designated as Plot No. B-1 and chalta no. 17, admeasuring 87.20 square metres, designated as plot no. B-3. Petitioner's late mother and grandmother had constructed the chapel in chalta no. 18/193, belonging to the family. Sometime in the year 1940. Although, the chapel was being used exclusively by Dias Souza family, as time passed, Dias Souza allowed the neighbours to offer prayers and perform religious ceremonies in the said chapel. However, sometime in the year 1980, it was agreed that a Committee in the name of 'Confraria of the Chapel of Dona Paula Taleigao' would be formed for the sole purpose of facilitating the daily operations of the said chapel; yet, chalta no. 18/193 was neither sold to respondent no. 4 nor were they put in possession of the same. As such, the respondent no. 4 were merely permitted to run the operations of the chapel, which was constructed by the family of the petitioner in the property belonging to her family.

3. The petitioner's case is that in the year 2003, an attempt was made by the respondent no. 4 to usurp the property belonging to late Anita. Thus, late Anita was constrained to make a complaint in the year 2003 to the Member Secretary of the then North Goa Planning and Development Authority. A copy of complaint dated 20.05.2003 is at Exhibit-D.

4. The petitioner suspected some foul play on the part of the respondent no. 4, in respect of the said properties and as such, called upon the PDA not to issue development/re-development permissions and approvals in chalta nos. 16 and 18 of P.T. Sheet no. 193 to the respondent no. 4. Vide communication dated 13.05.2020, the CCP was called upon not to grant construction license to the respondent no. 4 and to revoke any construction license, if already granted. Whereafter, upon collecting the information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was shocked to find that the respondent no. 4, vide Application dated 24.10.2019, had applied for development in the said chaltas 193/15, 16, 17 and 18 by seeking amalgamation of plots, repairs and additions to the existing structure. Whereupon, the respondents granted development permission dated 04.03.2020, in the suit properties; and permitted amalgamation of chalta nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. It is in these circumstances, the construction license granted by the CCP and development permissions granted under Section 44 of the Planning Act, 1974, are challenged in this Petition.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, without the consent of the petitioner and without the petitioner applying for, amalgamation of plots 15, 16, 17 and 18 could not have been permitted by the PDA, at the instance o