The court reaffirmed that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized and emphasized enforcement of demolition orders under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Menezes, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of finally.

3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats (DOP), Panaji, Goa in Case No.ADP-II/P.A.104/2014, exercising powers under Section 66 (7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act (The Panchayat Act); by the impugned order the DOP has allowed an appeal filed by Respondent No.3, against an order of demolition of a house structure, and granted him liberty to apply for necessary permissions on the Competent Authority for regularisation of the illegal construction. A further relief has been sought in this petition for a mandamus to be issued to the Panchayat to demolish the illegal structures under the two demolition orders issued against Respondent No.3, with a further relief to direct the Senior Town Planner to take action against the Respondent No.3 in terms of Section 17A of the Town & Country Planning Act for ensuring the mud/filling done by Respondent No.3 in the low lying agricultural field be removed, and the field restored to its original condition.

4. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are stated in the petition as under:-

a) On a complaint dated 11.04.2014 made by the petitioner to the Village Panchayat of Arpora Nagoa, Respondent No.2 herein (Panchayat), which alleged that the Respondent No.3 had constructed illegal shops in land under Survey No.28/16, at Mendes Waddo, Nagoa, the Panchayat, by demolition order dated 24.06.2014 directed demolition of the said shops; the demolition order, hereafter referred to as “the first demolition order”, passed in exercise of the provisions of Section 66 (4) of the Act, was based upon the fact that the illegal shops were constructed in an agricultural land (paddy field) after filling up the same, and without any revenue conservation being granted by the Collector in terms of the provisions of the Goa Land Revenue Code. The first demolition order was also based on the fact that the Respondent No.3 had obtained no permissions/approvals under the Planning Regulations from the concerned Planning Authority/Town Planner or construction permission from the Panchayat itself under Section 66(1) of the Act.

b) On a second complaint dated 15.05.2014 of the petitioner, alleging that the Respondent No.3 had also constructed an illegal house structure in the very same land under Survey No.28/16, a demolition order dated 30.07.2014, hereafter referred to as “the second demolition order” was issued on the very same grounds as the first demolition order.

c) Despite the first demolition order becoming final, the Panchayat chose not to execute the demolition order. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.3, by an application dated 21.03.2016 to the Panchayat requested the Panchayat to regularise the shop structures, which he claimed were shifted back from the road- widening line, and which a Resolution bearing No.7/1(A) dated 30.04.2016 was passed by the Panchayat to regularise the illegal shop structure on the Respondent No.3 donating part of his land for road widening to the Panchayat. This resolution was however, by later resolution bearing No.9(23) dated 14.12.2016 withdrawn by the Panchayat, obviously since the earlier resolution was illegal and beyond the Panchayat’s jurisdiction. The second resolution revoking regularisation was challenged before the DOP in an Appeal No.ADP-II/P.P.5/2017 by the Re