WP-382-2021.DOC

Andreza

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2021

1. Shri Suraj Gad,Major, occupation business at

House no. 220,Tinto Gorbhatt Waddo,Village

Arpora, Taluka Bardez-Goa.

2. Pritam Gad, Occupation business at House no.

220, Tinto Gorbatt Waddo, Village Arpora

Taluka, Bardez-Goa.

… Petitioners

V e r s u s

1. Shri Dr. Thomas Paul D'Souza, Major,

Resident of House no. 223, Gorbhatt Waddo

Arpora,Bardez, Goa 403516.

2. Block Development Officer I and II, Office of

the Block Development Officer, Bardez Block,

Govt. Offices Complex, 2

nd Floor Mapusa Bardez

Goa.

3. Village Panchayat of Arpora Nagoa, Through

its Sarpanch Office of the Village Panchayat of

Arpora, Nagoa, Arpora, Bardez-Goa.

4. North Goa Planning and Development

Authority, Archdiocese Bldg., 1

st Floor, Mala Link

Road, Panaji, Goa.

…Respondents

Ms. A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jay Sawaikar, Advocate for the

Petitioners.

Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate with Ms. Annelise Fernandes, Advocate for

Page 1 of 24

11^th April 2022

WP-382-2021.DOC

the Respondent no. 1.

Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the

Respondent no.2.

Mr. Pankaj Pai Vernekar, Advocate with Ms. Cidalia Lobo, Advocate

for the Respondent no.3.

Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent no.4.

______________________

CORAM:

A. K. MENON, J

DATED:

11

th April 2022

JUDGMENT

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive

notice.

2.

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated 24.09.2021

passed by the Block Development Officer, Respondent no.2, Mapusa,

Bardez, Goa, and the Resolution dated 25.09.2021 passed by the Village

Panchayat-Respondent no.3, of Arpora, Nagoa, by which an Order passed

by the Block Development Officer on 01.12.2020 was restored. The

Petitioners are tenants of Respondent no.1 who seek to carry out repairs of

the tenanted premises being House no. 220 at Arpora Bardez, Goa.

3.

The first Respondent, herein after referred to as the Landlord, is

opposed to the Petitioners. The second Respondent, is the Block

Page 2 of 24

11^th April 2022

WP-382-2021.DOC

Development Officer (BDO) and the third Respondent is the Village

Panchayat. The allegation in the Petition is that the Landlord is “managing

authoritties” into passing orders without hearing the Petitioners and, as a

result of which, the Petitioners are required to file multiple Petitions and

engage in litigations running from pillar to post only to carry out certain

repairs to their structures.

4.

The main ground of challenge to the impugned orders and as

canvassed by Ms. Agni, learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners,

is that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of

natural justice. No hearing was granted to the Petitioners prior to passing

the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated and non

est; that having been said that it is not seriously disputed that the order of

the BDO could have been challenged before the District Court under

Section 201 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Rules (Panchayat Raj

Act, for short) but since it is allegedly in breach of principles of natural

justice. Ms. Agni submitted that it is appropriate that this Court examined

the conduct of the authorities and grant relief.

FACTS IN BRIEF

5.

It is the Petitioners' case that on 15.08.2019, a portion of the

northern side wall of the house was endangered upon some mud falling

out. The southern side wall also had developed cracks and therefore, these

Page 3 of 24

11^th April 2022

WP-382-2021.DOC

two walls required repairs. It is contended that Respondent no.1

constructed sheds made of mild steel poles covered with acrylic sheets and

galvanized sheets to both northern and southern sides of the tenement

which had caused damage to the load beari