GANAPATI DEVASTHAN SAUNSTHAN Vs. COLLECTOR NORTH GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no. 1 is an institution incorporated under the Reguamenta de Mazanias. PETITIONER no. 2 is a Mahajan of the PETITIONER no. 1 temple. By the present petition the petitioners contend that by virtue of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, respondents 4 and 5 could not have used the land for a purpose other than agriculture. It is contended that though a permanent structure has been put up on the land, the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action. In these circumstances, they seek the reliefs as prayed for.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 4 and 5 have filed their reply. It is contended that respondent no. 4 was a tenant of the suit property of which the petitioner no. 1 was the landlord. The respondent no. 4 has purchased the property under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. Respondent no. 4 applied for permission under Section 18k of the Act to sell 200 sq. metres of the land to respondent on.5.On the land sold there was a structure standing which was being used by respondent no. 5 for the purpose of selling milk. Respondent no. 5 is a Co-operative Society. It is contended that this is an activity directly connected to agriculture. Respondent no. 5 has merely put up a pucca construction on the already existing structure with the permission of the Panchayat. On an application to the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2 granted permission by Order dated 22nd March 1996. The land sold is not being used for a purpose other than agriculture. Once that be the case, there was no requirement that the respondents 4 and 5 had to apply under Section 32 of the Goa Land Revenue Code. It is contended that the Deputy Collector/sub-Divisional Officer has inquired into the matter. The affidavit filed by Shri R. V. Chikodi, Sub-Divisional Officer shows that a fine of Rs. 500/- has been imposed on the ground that the construction was carried out without conversion about 3 years back.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, their learned counsel firstly contends that no new structure has been put up. ONce that be the case, taking permission under Section 32 of the Goa Land Revenue Code did not arise. Secondly it is contended that documentary evidence on record by itself including the Order of the Mamlatdar granting permission under Section 18k of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, indicates that a structure was existing. It is further contended that considering the language of Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, there would be no power in the Collector to take any action because the Section starts with a non obstante clause, that is, notwithstanding anything contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974' apart from other Acts set out thereunder. In the instant case, it is contended, that the Deputy Collector has already acted under Section 33 by imposing a penalty. It is, therefore, contended that once the powers are exercised, nothing further needs to be done. In these circumstances, it is contended, that reliefs sought for in the petition are infructuous and the petition is liable to be dismissed.