RUBERTINA SOUZA Vs. MARTO DIAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of respondent no. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the second respondent/Village Panchayat had issued a stop work notice in respect of the construction undertaken by the petitioner on the ground that it was unauthorized and without any construction licence/permission. Subsequently on 27/4/2009, the Deputy Director of Panchayats passed an order directing demolition. That was challenged by the petitioner before the Director and initially the appeal was allowed. The first respondent challenged the said order before the learned District Judge when the order of the Director was set aside and the matter was remanded. After remand, the Dy. Director dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22/7/2013. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner sought to challenge the same in a revision application before the District Judge in which there was delay. The Civil Revision application was accordingly accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

(3.) THE application was opposed on behalf of both the respondents. It was contended that the petitioner under the garb of repairs has carried out extensive construction of a structure comprising of ground plus two floors. It is submitted that the application for condonation of delay is vague and is lacking in material particulars. The application itself would show that the petitioner has not acted with due diligence and as such it cannot be said that there is sufficient cause for not filing revision application within time.