An appeal under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act is not maintainable when the rejection of a construction license application does not constitute an order of direction or notice.

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kantak appearing along with Mr. Deepak Gaonkar and Mr. Simoes for the Petitioner, Ms. Lata for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nadkarni for Respondent No. 2.

3. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 33 of 2023 wherein the Revision filed by Respondent No. 2-Communidade was allowed and the order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats was quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Kantak would submit that first of all, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court is perverse and without considering the relevant facts and therefore, it needs to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Kantak would submit that the Petitioner was allotted a plot of land by Communidade and thereafter, temporary possession was given. It is submitted that the Petitioner applied for construction license and accordingly, by resolution of the Panchayat, a letter was forwarded to the Administrator of the Communidade. It is submitted that a decision was taken to grant the license, however, subsequently, it was rejected. He submits that the Appeal was filed before the Director of Panchayats who allowed it and directed the Village Panchayat to grant the license.

6. Mr. Kantak would submit that the Communidade had no authority to challenge such an order passed by the Director of Panchayats in a Revision before the Court of District Judge. He submits that by misleading the fact, the order was passed without any jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Kantak would submit that the Communidade has only resolved to revert the allotment of the plot in favour of the Petitioner, however, there is no action taken thereafter.

7. Mr. Kantak submitted that in a Petition filed before this Court in the year 2017, a statement was made by the Advocate General that earlier orders/letters in this regard would be withdrawn. However, the Communidade by misleading the facts relied upon some letters/orders and the fact that such letters/orders were withdrawn was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge. He would, therefore, submit that the pleadings raised before the District Judge by the Communidade in the Revision were clearly dishonest.

8. Mr. Kantak would then submit that the impugned order nowhere discloses specific defence raised by the Petitioner in connection with the jurisdiction of this Court in deciding such Revision and accordingly, the order needs to be quashed and set aside.

9. Per contra, Mr. Nadkarni appearing for Respondent No.2/Communidade would submit that first of all there is serious dispute with regard to the grant of land in favour of the Petitioner. He submits that the entire proceedings would go to show that the Petitioner has applied for grant of plot of land in a different survey number whereas the plot issued in the favour of the Petitioner by the Administrator is completely in a different survey number. Thus, the question of granting permission to carry out construction in the plot which was not applied for by the Petitioner, needs to be decided.

10.Mr. Nadkarni would further submit that the proceedings filed by the Petitioner itself are not maintainable and the remedy to challenge rejection of license lies elsewhere and not under Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj Act. He submits that the Director was not competent to decide the proceedings filed before it and hence, this Petition is not tenable.

11.Mr. Nadkarni would submit that the temporary possession was granted in favour of the Petitioner and that the Communidade is entitled to revert it, if it is found that a totally different plot is allotted. He submits that the Communidade is very much entitled to raise objections with regard to the license and the Petitioner cannot raised any objection about it.

12.Rival contentions fall for