GOVIND K SHET Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anthony D'Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1. None for the remaining respondents though served. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated, 20.09.2011, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to intervene in Panchayat Appeal No. 143/2010 came to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an owner of the land admeasuring an area of 322 square metres of the property bearing survey no. 46/7 situated at Orgao Village within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat of Tivrem-Orgao. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 has carried out Some illegal construction partly in the land of the petitioner. The records further reveal that the local Panchayat has directed the demolition of the said illegal construction. But however, the respondent no. 3 had preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 1 being Panchayat Appeal No. 100/2008. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application for intervention which came to be allowed by order dated 03.03.2010. The appeal preferred by the respondent no. 3 came to be disposed of by judgment dated 10.08.2010 whereby the respondent no. 1 inter-alia remanded the matter to the concerned Panchayat for fresh decision. After the said remand, it appears that the Panchayat again passed an order for demolition of the impugned structure. The respondent no. 3 again preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 1 being Panchayat Appeal No. 143/2010. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for intervention which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 20.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Shri A. D'Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that by the earlier order in respect of the same disputed construction, the petitioner was permitted to intervene, but however, the respondent no. 1 whilst passing the impugned order dismissed a similar application filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the disputed construction is located in a part of the property of the petitioner and as such, any order passed by the respondent no. 1 would affect the right of the petitioner as far as the property of the petitioner is concerned. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it is well settled that any person whose right is affected with an illegal construction can intervene for the purpose of assisting the authorities in deciding the appeal preferred by the disputant. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that the impugned order cannot be sustained.