24-WP-284-2022.DOC

Suchitra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.284/2022

MR. GURUDAS VATTU CHATI

ALDONKAR, age 76, resident of

H.No.125/A, Khursawaddo, Carona, Aldona,

Bardez, Goa.

... Petitioner

Versus

1. STATE OF GOA, Through Chief

Secretary, Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Goa.

2. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ALDONA,

through its Secretary, Aldona, Bardez, Goa.

3. MR. RAJU HALDANKAR, also known as

Mr. Rajendra Datta Chatim, resident of

Khursawaddo, Carona, Aldona, Bardez, Goa.

… Respondents

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Sequeira,

Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the

State.

Mr. Allan F.C. Andrade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Vilas P. Thali, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK &

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

Reserved on:

Pronounced on:

21^st SEPTEMBER 2022

29th SEPTEMBER 2022

Page 1 of 28

29th September 2022

24-WP-284-2022.DOC

JUDGMENT: (Per M.S. Sonak, J.)

1.

Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate, who

appears along with Mr. T. Sequeira for the Petitioner, Mr.

Andrade for respondent no.2 and Mr. Vilas Thali for respondent

no.3.

2.

By order dated 05.05.2022, notices were issued to the

respondents indicating that this petition will be finally disposed

of at the admission stage. Accordingly, we issue Rule. The Rule is

made returnable immediately at the request of and with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3.

On 26.04.2022, the Petitioner filed a complaint to

respondent no.2 (Panchayat) about the commencement of illegal

construction in Survey No.274/15 by respondent no.3. The

Petitioner enclosed coloured photographs of the ongoing

construction and requested appropriate action to stop/demolish

the illegal construction.

4.

On receipt of the complaint, the acting Sarpanch, on

26.04.2022, issued a stop work notice under Section 64(J) of the

Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act), requiring respondent

no.3 to stop the illegal activity of construction immediately and

to present himself in the office within three days along with all

Page 2 of 28

29th September 2022

24-WP-284-2022.DOC

the documents to prove that the construction undertaken is not

unlawful or is backed by permissions from various departments.

This stop work notice stated that if respondent no.3 failed to

produce the necessary documents, it would be presumed that he

has nothing to say in the matter, and further action in terms of

Section 66 of the said Act will be initiated against the said

construction.

5.

The Petitioner has pleaded, and with some justification,

that after issuing the above stop work notice dated 26.04.2022,

the Panchayat did not bother to ensure its implementation.

Additionally, the Petitioner has pleaded that the construction

continued on a war footing despite service of stop work notice on

respondent no.3. Therefore, the Petitioner instituted this petition

on 02.05.2022 and obtained circulation on 05.05.2022.

6.

In writing on 02.05.2022, the Petitioner informed the

Panchayat about the institution of the petition and its hearing on

05.05.2022. In this communication, the Petitioner pointed out

that even though the Petitioner was made to believe that a stay

notice was issued to respondent no.3, the construction continued.

Additionally, the Petitioner pointed out that the Panchayat had

taken no steps to enforce its stop work notice, no panchanama

was drawn, and the matter was not taken to its logical conclusion.

Page 3 of 28

29th September 2022

24-WP-284-2022.DOC

The Petitioner also enclosed new photographs of the ongoing

construction.

7.

On 05.05.2022, this Court, upon hearing the learned

Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and the learned

Additional Government Advocate, made the following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel who

appears along with Mr. Terence Sequeira, learned Counsel

for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Priolkar, learned Additional

Government Advocate appea