JUDGEMENT

1. Rule.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent.

4. The petitioner who is the owner of a flat and a garage wherein he is carrying out business of restaurant and general stores, approached this Court thereby challenging the order passed by the Secretary (Urban Development) Appellate Authority, Government of Goa dated 27.12.2022.

5. The respondent No. 3 filed a complaint regarding illegal construction carried out by the petitioner upon which the transgression report was prepared and filed by the authorities of the corporation of city of Panaji, showing four structures which are found to be illegal and without any permission. Accordingly, a demolition order was issued by the Commissioner, on 26.05.2020, which the petitioner challenged before the Secretary.

6. The said municipal appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of Urban Development, which is now challenged in the present petition.

7. Heard. Ms. Barbara Andrade, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms. Sulekha Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos 3 and 4 and Mr. Vledson Braganza, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5. 8. Ms. Andrade learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that there are minor deviations and infact the vegetable stall, existing infront of the garage is now removed. She submits that the front and back protection was erected 30 years back, and it is only for the purpose of protection of the said premises which has been now allotted to the petitioner during the inventory proceedings. She submits that regularisation of these minor deviations/structures was already filed and such application is pending. She would submit that no prejudice is going to cause to the respondent as such structures are only for the purpose of protecting the things.

9. Ms. Kamat learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that earlier application for regularisation was rejected, whereas second application filed by the petitioner is also recently rejected. She submits that the illegal structures were erected without any permission and thus, such structures need to be removed as application for regularisation has been rejected.

10. Mr Ramaiya learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and 4 would submit that the said house was initially constructed by the parents of the petitioner and respondent no.3 and there are four apartments along with one garage. He submits that though during the lifetime of father of petitioner and respondent no.3, the garage was used for conducting the business after obtaining permission. The petitioner is now operating the restaurant in the flat allotted to him. Mr Ramaiya would submit that though permission is obtained by the petitioner to operate the restaurant, he is not entitled to extend the front and back portion of the flat/apartment by erecting a shed as the property/land is for the common use of all the co-owners.

11. Mr. Ramaiya would submit that the petitioner has extended the front and back portion by erecting a shed and that too for using it for storing the things as well as for his employees working in the restaurant. He submits that the rear extension on the chamber creates disturbance.

12. Mr Ramaiya would submit that on the front there is a tin sheet erected above the garage, which is again an illegal extension. Similarly, on the front portion of the garage, a sitting arrangement is made for the customers by erecting a platform around the tree and by reducing the open space. He submits that there is no permission or any license obtained by the petitioner to carry out such extension.

13. Rival contentions fall for consideration.

14. From the pleadings in the petition, it would be clear that the said house was constructed by the parents of the petitioner, respondent no.3 and other siblings. It consists of four apartments/villas. On the ground fl