SANTOSH VITHAL KORGAOKAR Vs. ASDRALENO DE MELLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Faldesai, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to an order dated 29th April, 2008 passed by the learned Mamlatdar in Case No. MAM/BAR/ILLE-CANCA/86/2008, whereby an extension is allegedly carried out by the petitioner to the existing structure. Mr. Mulgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has raised two challenges in the above petition, firstly that the impugned order has been passed without clearly specifying the alleged encroachment nor taking into consideration that the provisions of Goa Land (Prohibition on Construction) Act 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1995") has not been applicable to the facts of the present case, as admittedly the initial permission of the respondent no.1 was obtained by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not violated the permission and, as such, as the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity of being heard, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Faldesai, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2, has pointed out that the provisions of the Act of 1995 would be applicable to the cases where the initial entry of such person is without the consent of the concerned authority. The learned Government Advocate further points out that as such the orders in the present case are justified.