RAMESH G. SAKHARKAR Vs. JOSE PHILIP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the action of the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in causing destruction and demolition of the petitioners structure in property bearing survey No. 69 Sub-Division 1, situated at village Socorro, Bardez, Goa, belonging to the Comunidate of Socorro, to which the petitioner claims tenancy. According to the petitioner this action on the part of the respondents, after getting illegal entry into the property without notice to the petitioner and without his consent and subsequent acts of damage, loss and destruction to the petitioner's structure, amount to offences under the Indian Penal Code, namely, of Criminal trespass and mischief.

(3.) The petitioner contends that he originally the tenant of the said paddy field in view of the Fifth Amendment to the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act (hereinafter called "the Act) and became its deemed owner. The petitioner has also paid the purchase price of the paddy field and the Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluk had issued in his favour certificate of purchase under subsection (1) of Sec. 18 (h) of the Act. The petitioner has always been and still is cultivating the said paddy field and for that reason he felt the need of erecting a structure in the field for the purpose of keeping his cattle and storing agricultural implements as well as agricultural products in the said paddy field. For that purpose the petitioner has approached the competent authorities namely the Northern Planning and Development Authority and an application, dated 30th Oct., 1982, was made by him for permission for development under Sec. 44 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter called the "Town Planning Act"). After this application was filed there was a change of jurisdiction of the Planning Authorities and the before the petitioners application was transferred to the Town and Country Planning Department for necessary action. Thereupon the said application was sent by respondent No. 3 to the said Panchayat of the Village of Panchayat of Socorro, with a request to direct the petitioner to comply with the observation:, made in its letter dated 3rd March, 1994. In the meantime the petitioner has obtained the Village Panchayats permission, dated 18th Feb., 1994, for the purpose of development under Sec. 44 of the Town Planning Act and subsequently the said Panchayat granted him also a licence on 31st May, 1994 to construct a katcha farm house as applied for by the petitioner. After granting of this licence of the Panchayat the petitioner commenced the construction of the farm house and by the 5th July, 1994 he had completed the walls at the stage of fixing wooden beams in order to put up the roof. However, on 6th July, 1994, at about 5.30 p.m., the respondents No. 1 to 7 with some police personnel and municipal workers came to the site and at the behest of the respondent No. 1 the team of workers carried on partial demolition of the said structure consequent upon the direction given by respondents No. 3 to 7 to the municipal workers to break and dismantle the walls of the construction. It was staled by the petitioner that he had got his plans made for construction of the farmhouse through an Architect as per the guidelines of the Government for construction of farm houses and submitted the same to Socorro Village Panchayat for its permission which was ultimately granted to the Panchayat. The permission has also been sought by the petitioner from the Planning Authorities and on the petitioner complying with all requirements of law permission had been given to him to put up the construction. When the construction was demolished walls had not been completed and the same had reached the stage of putting tho roof. The petitioner submitted that the construction was fully complete. It was stated that the demolition of part of the walls of the petitioners farm house was done by the respondents without prior intimation to the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner therefore prayed for a writ, direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the work of construction of farm house in the petitioners field surveyed under No. 69 1 of Socorro Village. A further prayer was made directing the respondents to jointly and sever-, ally compensate the petitioner for the damage and loss caused to him for the criminal act on the part of the said respondents.