MANEESHA NARVEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment and order dated 26/7/2010 passed by the second respondent, Minister for Urban Development, State of Goa in Municipal Second Appeal No.7/2009. By the impugned judgment, the second respondent has allowed the Municipal Appeal filed under section 184D to the Goa Municipalities Act 1968 (Act, for short) and has set aside the judgment and order dated 3/2/2009 passed by the Municipalities Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal, for short). The net result is that the final notice dated 3/8/2004 issued by the third respondent/Municipal Council, for demolition of a compound wall constructed by the petitioner has been set aside.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:

(3.) It appears that the said respondents filed a reply to the show cause notice and the matter was heard by one Mr. T. A. Fernandes, who was then the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. During the course of the hearing respondent no.4 filed an Affidavit dated 8/8/2002 stating that the compound wall is constructed in her property bearing P.T.S. Sheet 112 Chalta no.1 and there was no compensation towards any land cost paid to her. It was pointed out that the compound wall is constructed as per the construction licence. The fourth respondent, however, undertook to remove the said compound wall at her own cost as and when required for the road widening purpose. It appears that thereafter the matter remained pending. Mr. D.M. Bandodkar, who was the successor of Mr. Fernandes took up the matter in the year 2004 and a final notice dated 3/8/2004 was issued directing the fourth respondent to vacate the encroachment and to demolish the compound wall within 15 days. It appears from the final notice that the same was issued as the Council had issued a work order for construction of a drain at the location where the compound wall was constructed. The fourth respondent challenged the said final notice before the Appellate Tribunal in Municipal Appeal no.34/2004 which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 3/2/2009 inter alia on the ground that the photographs produced on record showed that the compound wall was falling within the road widening area. Feeling aggrieved the fourth respondent approached the second Appellate Authority under section 184D of the Act. By the impugned judgment the second appellate authority has allowed the appeal and the order of demolition has been set aside which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.