MARIALA FERNANDES Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf respondent no. 1.

(2.) RULE . Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith.

(3.) CASE of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner demolished the old house existing in the property bearing Survey No. 81/2011 at village Betalbatim originally occupied by her and Rosa Maria Ratos and constructed an entirely new house bearing House No. 26 exclusively at her costs and by obtaining all the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. The Village Panchayat of Betalbatim had issued construction licence no. 85/56/1984 -1985 and the construction plans were approved. The petitioner has been residing in the said house along with her family members continuously and uninterruptedly for the last 25 years and the house tax has been assessed by respondent no. 2 in her name and she is paying the same. The petitioner also pays the electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills, pertaining to the said house and also has ration card in respect of the said house. On 18/03/2010, the petitioner received a notice issued by respondent no. 2 stating that it has received a letter dated 27/02/2010 from respondent no. 3 regarding transfer of house tax of house no. 26 from the name of Rosa Maria Ratos to the name of the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 had raised objection to the assessment of house tax in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 does not have any right or interest to the said house and she has been residing in the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 27 at Betalbatim for the last many years. On 18/03/2010, the respondent no. 2 informed the petitioner about the said letter dated 27/02/2010 and asked the petitioner to submit documents, if any. On 25/03/2010, the petitioner filed reply along with documents before respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2, after considering all the aspects, rejected the contention of respondent no. 3 and accordingly, issued to her a letter No. VP/BET/2010 -11687 to that effect. On 22/03/2011, the petitioner received a letter from respondent no. 2 informing that respondent no. 3 has preferred an appeal to the respondent no. 1 aggrieved by the letter No. VP/BET/2010 -11687. On 27/04/2011, the petitioner filed an application for intervention before the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 filed reply objecting to the same. By order dated 22/08/2011, respondent no.1 rejected the said intervention application. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 656/2011 before this Court against the said order dated 22/08/2011 of respondent no.1. In the meantime, by order dated 18/10/2011, respondent no.1 allowed the petition filed by respondent no. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition and she was given liberty to avail of remedies available in law to challenge the said final order passed by respondent no. 1. Writ Petition No. 656/2011 was disposed of, accordingly, on 17/11/2011. On 09/12/2011, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No. 34/2011 before the learned District Court. During the pendency of the said Civil Revision Application, by order dated 28/12/2011, the Secretary of Panchayats, Government of Goa passed the order confirming the order dated 18/10/2011 passed by respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for amendment before the learned Adhoc District Judge -2, in Civil Revision Application No. 34/2011, seeking to incorporate the said subsequent events. By order dated 02/08/2013, the said application for amendment came to be dismissed. The said order dated 02/08/2013 is impugned in the present petition.