22002266::BBHHCC--GGOOAA::9977 Andreza IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 3102 OF 2025 (F) 1. Mrs. Prerna Khetrapal, wife of Shri Rahul Khetrapal, Aged about 35 years, Service, R/o. House no. B174, 3^rd Floor, East off Kailash, New Delho – 110065.

2. Mrs. Renu Gulati, Wife of Shrui Mukesh Gulati, Aged about 54 years, Service, R/o. D8, Ocean Park, Dona Paula, Tiswadi, Goa 0

403004.

3. Mrs. Ashwini Nayak, Wife of Shrinivas Nayak, Aged 45 years, Service, Resident of C- 6, Ocean Park, Dona Paula, Tiswadi, Goa 0

403004.

4. Mrs. Sabeena Pillai, wife of shri Sajan Pillai, Aged 36 years, Service, R/o. House no. 129/3, Plot No. 104 & 105, Ocean Park, Behind N. S. D., Dabolim, Alto Dabolim, ...Petitioners Goa, 403806.

Versus

1. 1. Village Panchayat of Verna, Through its Secretary, Salcete, Goa – 403 722.

2. The Secretary, Village Panchayat of Verna, Salcete, Goa ...Respondents Mr. Parag Rao, Advocate with Mr. Akhil Parrikar., Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. Athnain Naik, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

RESERVED ON : 21^st JANUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 22^nd JANUARY, 2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Petition was taken up for final hearing.

2. By way of the present Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the Impugned Communication dated 20^th November 2025, bearing Ref. No. VP/V/1833/2025-2026 issued by the Respondents, revoking the NOC granted to the Petitioners on 12^th November 2024.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioners are the owners of the property bearing survey no. 36/1-A of Verna Village admeasuring approximately 24,235 square meters of area. They had purchased the said property vide Sale Deed dated 10^th August 2017, registered on 23^rd August, 2017, before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. They applied to the Town and Country Planning Department (‘TCP’) for sub-division of the said property. A provisional technical clearance dated 19^th January

2023, was issued by the TCP.

4. Pursuant to the said provisional clearance, the Petitioners also sought No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) for sub-division of the property from the Respondent no. 1, namely, the Village Panchayat of Verna. A Sanad dated 10^th July 2008, was also procured from the office of the Deputy Collector under the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code of 1968.

5. The Petitioners carried out the sub-division of the property in accordance with the approved plan and applied for the final technical clearance from the TCP. The same was granted on 27^th September 2024. The Village Panchayat also issued the final NOC dated 12^th November 2024, and collected fees of Rs.1,41, 720/-. Thereafter, the Petitioners further sold property to third parties by executing the necessary agreements. At this stage, the Respondent no.2 i.e. the Secretary of the Village Panchayat of Verna, issued a communication dated 11^th November 2025, calling upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why the final NOC should not be revoked. The said show cause notice was alleged to have been sent based on a complaint and a decision taken by the Gram Sabha. The Petitioners replied the said show cause notice, however, the Secretary of the Village Panchayat issued the Impugned Communication dated 20^th November 2025, to the Senior Town Planner, revoking the final NOC earlier granted by the Village Panchayat. A copy of the said communication is also marked to the Petitioners. It is this communication which is assailed in the present Petition.

6. Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioners and Mr. Athnain Naik, learned Counsel appears for the Respondents.

7. Mr. Rao submitted that the Respondents have no statutory power to revoke a inal NOC once it is issued and acted upon. He also submitted that the Impugned Revocation/Communication is issued without any opportunity to the Petitioners to be heard and hence the principles of natural justice are violated. He also submitted that there is no cause made o