SHRI DAHYABHAI C. PATEL Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT PARRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Parikshit Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Vernekar along with Mr. B. Fatarpekar, Advocates for the Respondent No.1, Mr. P. Arolkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 and Mr. R. Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondents No.4 to 6.

(2.) The petitioner, by instituting this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has applied for the following substantive reliefs:-

(3.) The petitioner, in his petition has pleaded that he is the owner of the property bearing Survey No.121/28 at Parra, Goa and respondent no.1 Panchayat along with the respondent no.2 i.e. the Public Works Department have, in an high-handed manner, encroached upon a portion of this property in order to undertake the exercise of road widening, closure of drains and even construction of a traffic island. The petitioner has made reference to the order made by this Court on 20.07.2010 in Writ Petition Nos.178 and 185 of 2003 instituted by the erstwhile owner of the said property, one Mr. Claudio Michael D'Souza in the context of grant of permissions for development in the said property and also the proposed construction of a traffic island, on account of which development permissions were being declined by respondent no.1 to the erstwhile owner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents no.1 and 2 have acted in an high-handed manner in encroaching upon a portion of the petitioner's property admeasuring approximately about 232 sq.mtrs., not to mention certain further encroachments over drains and for purposes of road widening and therefore, the reliefs applied for in this petition should be granted to the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser. Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Civil Appeal Nos.60-61 of 2020 decided on 08.01.2020 to submit that though the right to property may not be a fundamental right, nevertheless, it is both the constitutional right as well as the human right.