Meena/Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2023 (F)

Mr. Pramod Parulekar, Son of Shri Dnyaneshwar Parulekar, Aged about 49 years, Married, Indian National, R/o. H.No.710, Dhanwado, Saligao, Bardez – Goa. … PETITIONER Versus

1. Village Panchayat Socorro, Through its Secretary, Socorro, Bardez- Goa.

2. Communidade of Serula, Through its Attorney, Having Office at West Coast Residency, 1^st floor, Opposite to Bank of India, Porvorim, Bardez- Goa. … RESPONDENTS *****

Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gaonkar and Mr. Kher Simoes, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sweta Lata and Mr. Akshay Naik, Advocates holding for Mr.

Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Yogesh V. Nadkarni with Ms. Simran Khadilkar, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

RESERVED ON: 4^th April, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 23^rd April, 2024

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 questio