SHASHIKANT GARAD Vs. VIJAY GAUNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.

(3.) The above petition challenges the order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 19.07.2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to clear the land by removing the rubble stones and any other material dumped in the lane including the trees planted by him in the lane. Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Mamlatdar was not notified to act under the provisions of the Goa Land (Prohibition from Construction) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the respondent no. 1 had no locus standi to file such objection. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there was breach of principle of natural justice whilst passing the impugned order as according to him there was no opportunity given to the petitioner to cross examine the respondent no. 1 and the Talathi who had given the report. The learned Counsel further pointed out that by the impugned order, besides the material etc., which have been ordered to be removed, the respondent no. 2 has also directed the petitioner to remove the trees which is not contemplated as per the provisions of the said Act. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that by the impugned order, finding has been arrived at to the effect that the disputed area is a public lane which would come in the way of the petitioner in the suit pending before the Civil Court filed against the respondent no. 1 herein. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the garb of the impugned order the house of the petitioner may be demolished. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.