Substantial compliance with eviction notice requirements is sufficient, provided parties are aware of grounds for eviction, protecting the principles of natural justice.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Since common issues are involved, the present petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The challenge in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao in an appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector & SDO, Margao, Salcete Goa.

3. The respondent no.1 village panchayat claims that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants and in possession of shop premises which belong to the panchayat. The said shops are public premises. The respondent no.1 filed an application before the Estate Officer for the issue of an eviction order of the petitioners from the public premises on 8.5.2015.

4. Some of the petitioners came in occupation of the premises based on the leave and license agreement executed by the panchayat in their favour. In respect of three of the petitioners, there was no leave and license agreement but they were permitted by the village panchayat to occupy the shop premises.

5. In the application, the village panchayat in detail stated reasons for the eviction of the petitioners. One of the ground was that as per Section 158 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act,-1994(“the Act” for short) the suit premises could not/cannot be leased for a period of more than five years without the prior permission of the Zilla Panchayat. It was contended that no such prior permission from the Zilla Panchayat has been obtained and hence, the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the suit premises. This apart from the other contentions raised. It is contended by the Panchayat that the period for which premises were licensed has come to an end. Prior to the application for eviction made before the Estate Officer, the village panchayat issued a show cause notice dated 8.8.2014 as to why the leave and license agreement should not be terminated and called upon the petitioners to vacate the said premises. The show cause notice dated 8.8.2014 issued by the village panchayat was duly replied to by the petitioners by their response dated 22.8.2014. In response to the application made by the Village Panchayat for issuance of an eviction order of the petitioners from the public premises, the Estate Officer, issued a notice informing the petitioners that the village panchayat has filed a case before the Estate Officer that they are in unauthorized occupation and hence, the notice calling upon them to vacate the unauthorized occupation of the above suit premises under Section 4 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and Rules (“the said Act ” for short). By a communication dated 9.12.2014, the village panchayat terminated the leave and license agreement executed by the petitioners and called upon them to vacate the premises within 15 days.

6. In response to the notice dated 5.6.2015 of the Estate Offier, the petitioners filed replies raising preliminary objections. Apart from the other grounds, one of the ground pertains to the notice being bad in law as the same is not in conformity of section 4(2) of the said Act. Further, an objection was raised that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as it does not come within the purview of the said Act of 1988.

7. During the pendency of the application before the Estate Officer, a PIL Writ Petition bearing No. 20/2019 came to be filed in this Court by the present respondent no. 2 contending that despite issuing notice under the said Act of 1988, the same is not being taken to the logical conclusion. This Court in paragr