SATEESH @SATISH K AZGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and upheld the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer exercising his powers under Section 33 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, 'the Code' for short hereinafter.

(2.) Heard Shri C. Padgaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended that the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector under Section 33 of the Code was liable for reversal as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He adverted to the check list drawn by the Talathi pointing out the four allegations against the petitioners viz a viz developing the plots, hill cutting, construction of the road by rubble and laterite stones and cutting down trees. They had filed their reply in which it was clearly stated that there existed a Panchayat road in their property being situated on the Northern side of the Survey No.129 which was being cleared off all the bushes as it was not maintained by the Panchayat and/or the PWD as being the only access to their property. Another plea was taken in the reply of some of the respondents that besides the Panchayat road shown on the survey plan, there was no other road at the site and the so called road shown on the plan by the Field Surveyor Mapusa as an illegal road constructed with laterite stones did not exist at the site and which could be verified by a joint site inspection.

(3.) He further contended that the petitioners had otherwise clearly asserted in their petition that there was no other road on the site besides the Panchayat road shown in the Survey Plan and the so called illegal road shown in the plan by the Field Surveyor as an illegal road did not exist at the site which could be verified by a joint site inspection. There was only one road in the middle of the property under Survey No.129 which was constructed with the pavers only because the terrain was sloppy and the trail was usually washed away during the monsoons. He next adverted to the inspection report drawn at the instance of this Court where there was a clear reference to the fact that there was no on going development work or machinery or labourers seen at the site to buttress his case that no activity was carried out in the disputed property by the Petitioners. Besides the inspection report made a reference to a katcha road leading from the village road to the disputed property bearing Survey No.129/0, 130/0 and 131/0 which was unlike the statement of the Village Panchayat- respondent No.9 that there was no notified Panchayat road leading internally towards the said properties.