IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the absence of valid construction permissions renders any structure illegal, and mere tax assessments do not confer legality upon unauthorized constructions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr Sagar Rivankar for the Petitioner, Mr A. D. Bhobe for Respondent No.1 and Mr Jatin Ramaiya for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the following:-

<WXY>a) Panchayat's demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017;

b) Additional Director of Panchayat's Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020 partly upholding Panchayat's demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017;

c) District Court's order dtd. 11/2/2022 upholding Additional Director of Panchayat's Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020.</WXY>

4. Thus, the challenge in this petition is to the concurrent orders made by the Panchayat, Additional Director of Panchayats and the District Court ordering the demolition of illegal constructions put up by the petitioner in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Village Queula, Goa. Even though the show cause notice and demolition order was made in respect of ten structures, the Additional Director, in his Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020, directed the demolition of seven illegal structures but not the three remaining structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401 which were assessed to tax by the Panchayat.

5. Mr Pereira learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017 violated the principles of natural justice because no notice of site inspection was served upon the petitioner. He offered that the endorsement on the Panchanama that the petitioner refused to sign the Panchanama is incorrect. He submitted that the petitioner has denied signing the notice of inspection and the Additional Director and the District Court did not adequately consider this aspect. He offered that the demolition order based upon inspection behind the petitioner's back would violate the principles of natural justice and fair play. He relied on Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v/s. Inderjit Singh And Another - (2008) 13 SCC 506 and referred to a passage from De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1980 Edition) supporting his contentions.

6. Mr Pereira submitted that there were several structures in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Queula Village. He offered that the Panchayat was duty-bound to identify the structures it alleged were illegal. He submitted that if any structures were illegal or unauthorised, the petitioner would not hesitate to demolish them. However, he offered that due to the vagueness of the impugned demolition order and the ex-parte site visit and panchanamas, the petitioner apprehends the demolition of the legal structures. Mr Pereira submits that this is a good enough reason to set aside the impugned Judgments and Orders, even though concurrent.

7. Mr Pereira states that the constructions were built before 1994, i.e. before the Panchayat Raj Act 1994 entered force. He, therefore, submitted that the same are not illegal and unauthorised, as alleged by the Panchayat. He submits that the Additional Director and the District Court did not adequately consider this aspect of the matter.

8. Mr Pereira submits that the impugned demolition order and the Judgments and Orders of the Additional Director and the District Court must be interfered with on all the above grounds and for all the above reasons.

9. Mr A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel for respondent no.1- Panchayat, submits that principles of natural justice and fair play were followed in this matter. He presents that the petitioner came up with a false case about not receiving any notice of inspection. However, records were called, and it was verified that the petitioner not only received the notice of inspection but also signed it as a token of receipt. Mr Bhobe invited the Court to compare the notice's signature with the petitioner's admitted signatures. He submitted that there could be no doubt about the receipt of the notice and th