MANOHAR VITHAL KORGAONKAR Vs. GURUDAS B KORGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri P. Karpe, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.5.

(2.) THE above petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 9/09/2008 whereby the Panchayat Appeal No.56/2008 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 came to be dismissed.

(3.) SHRI J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that in terms of provisions of Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj Act it is mandatory that any person who wants to put up a construction has to obtain the permission from the Panchayat. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the respondent no.1 was in the process of putting up a construction in a common property a complaint came to be lodged by the petitioners with that regard. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as no action was taken by the local Panchayat on the complaint lodged by the petitioners an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Director of Panchayat. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Deputy Director dismissed the said appeal on the ground that as the local Panchayat/respondent no.4 had already granted permission in terms of law the question of directing demolition of such construction would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there are no powers under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act permitting the Panchayat to grant such permission for illegal construction. The learned Counsel further pointed out that despite of the stop order granted by the Panchayat the respondent no.1 carried out the construction and, as such, the question of granting permission to an illegal construction is totally unjustified. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director and pointed out that the Deputy Director has also considered that a Civil Suit is pending between the respondents and the petitioners with regard to the same house and, as such, the question of exercising jurisdiction would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Deputy Director has gone into the aspect of title which was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel as such submits that the construction put up by the respondent no.1 is illegal and the the natural corollary thereon is that such construction deserves to be demolished.