IMPORTANT POINT
The Panchayat Raj Act empowers the Panchayat to act against illegal constructions regardless of whether they are ongoing or completed, and the Limitation Act does not apply to the Panchayat's enforcement actions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms Marie Rosette Pereira for the Petitioner, Mr S. Karpe with Mr Anand Shirodkar for Respondent No.1 and Ms Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, by order dtd. 21/4/2023, it was clarified that subject to constraints of time, an endeavour would be made to dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage. This was reiterated in the order dtd. 16/6/2023.

3. The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dtd. 21/6/2022 made by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, FTC-I, North Goa, Panaji, in Civil Revision Application No.50/2021 under Sec. 201-B of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act).

4. The petitioner and the first respondent are neighbours. On the boundary dividing their properties is situated a common well, which is partly in the petitioner's and partly in the first respondent's property. This well is duly reflected in the old as well as new survey records. About the existence and location of this well, there is no dispute.

5. The petitioner, between May and August 2016, filed complaints inter alia to the health authorities and the Panchayat alleging that the first respondent had unauthorisedly covered this well and constructed a toilet, septic tank and soak pit on this common well without obtaining any permissions from any authorities. The second respondent-Panchayat conducted a site inspection on 30/9/2016. It is the petitioner's case that the Panchayat, despite noticing the apparent illegalities, failed to take any action against the same. It is also the petitioner's case that the first respondent, emboldened by the second respondent's inaction, commenced further illegal construction of an extension of the house by erection of cement concrete poles. The petitioner accordingly filed a complaint before the Block Development Officer (BDO), complaining about the second respondent's inaction in the matter.

6. The petitioner has pleaded that in November 2016, the BDO carried out an inspection and submitted the report to the Deputy Director of Panchayat, i.e., the third respondent. Mr Usgaonkar pointed out that in case of inaction by the Panchayat, the Deputy Director is authorised to assume the powers of the Panchayat and initiate action. Accordingly, on 20/12/2016, the Deputy Director of Panchayats issued a notice to the Panchayat.

7. The Panchayat issued a notice to the first respondent on 27/12/2016, requiring the first respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the prima facie illegal constructions put up by him. The Panchayat, however, responded to the Deputy Director that since the Deputy Director had already assumed jurisdiction, the Panchayat was only awaiting a response from the first respondent.

8. The first respondent replied to the show cause notice. However, despite the reply, the Panchayat failed to take any action in the matter, mostly citing that the matter was pending before the Deputy Director. In short, despite the petitioner's complaints and further despite the inspection reports showing prima facie violations, the Panchayat, the BDO and the Deputy Director did not take any immediate action in the matter. The period between May 2016 and February 2017 was spent by the authorities writing to each other or issuing notices but without taking any concrete action against the prima facie illegal constructions of a toilet, septic tank, and a soak pit over the common well.

9. However, on 9/2/2017, the Deputy Director assumed powers of the Panchayat and issued notice to the first and second respondents. On 27/6/2017, the first respondent filed a reply to the notice. The Panchayat also filed its response on 19/10/2017, purporting to explain why no action was taken despite the inspection reports showing prima facie that the first respondent carried out illegal