BHARAT SHANTILAL SHAH Vs. PERCIVAL NORONHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 8th November, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Civil Appeal No. 1/2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the said Appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the change of zone of the petitioners property to commercial zone in the Outline Development Plan. The petitioner took objection to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to institute an appeal within the meaning of section 38 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The said preliminary objection has been rejected by the impugned order; and instead it has been held that appeal filed by respondent No. 1 is maintainable.

(3.) THE petitioner, has, therefore, taken exception to the view taken by the District Court, by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 1 appeared in person and supported the opinion expressed by the District Judge in the impugned order; whereas Shri V. P. Thali, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 supported the plea taken by the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in (Babua Ram and others v. State of U. P. and another), reported in 1995 (1) G. L. T. 192 which has dealt with the expression "a person aggrieved" in section 28-A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.