ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. S. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants.

None for the Respondents, though duly served.

2. The above Appeal came to be admitted on 11.12.2006 on the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether after holding that there was suppression of fact by the respondents while submitting the plans for approval and the respondent no.1, had presented the plan to the then Municipal Council of Panaji after demolishing the kitchen portion of the hut of the appellants, the 1st Appellate Court could have held that the respondent no.1 was entitled to put up the construction pursuant to the said licence granted in favour of respondent no.1 was not in violation of any rules, byelaws or laws.

(ii) Whether he finding that clause 32 I(b) of the Panjim Municipal Council Building Bylaws Regulation 1975, which provides for minimum size of the plot are applicable only where subdivision of plot is effected and whether the regula