ANA MARIA VAZ Vs. SECRETARY/SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the Order dated 10.04.2018 passed by this Court, pursuant to which the Writ Petition came to be disposed off after quashing and setting aside the order under challenge in the same. The applicant seeks a review thereof on the premise that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as this Court had not considered the ratio laid down in the case of Sayed Muzafar Ali whilst coming to a conclusion that the Additional Director of Panchayats went off at a tangent while considering the aspect of regularization. There was also an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court had failed to consider that the regularization application was filed under the provisions of the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016 which was contemplated within the State policy, and therefore, the Additional Director of Panchayats was well within his jurisdiction to direct the regularization prior to demolition. There was also no reference to the said Act by this Court confirming the right of the applicant to get the structure regularized which had a direct bearing on the impugned judgment and order. The application therefore be allowed and the order under challenge be reviewed. It was accompanied by a copy of the judgment under review dated 10.04.2018 apart from the Goa Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction Act, 2008.

(2.) Heard Shri. Shivan Desai, learned Advocate for the applicant, who adverted to the judgment under review and reiterated his contention as taken in the application that it was a fit case to review the order. He placed reliance in Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and Another Versus Gurudas B. Korgaonkar and Others [Writ Petition No. 616 of 2008], and in a batch of petitions numbering 152/2018, 132/2018, 133/2018, 136/2018, 140/2018 and 148/2018, filed by one Anthony Barbosa against various persons. Besides, in his submission Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with the Rules indicated that there was sufficient power in the Panchayat to order regularization. Therefore, in view of the errors apparent on the face of the record, the order had to be reviewed.

(3.) Shri. Joaquim Godinho, learned Advocate for the respondents adverted to the very same order of which review was sought and submitted that there was a detailed discussion on Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The impugned judgment did not justify any review, and even otherwise, the applicant had approached the Panchayat, which had adopted a resolution and rejected her plea for regularization. Besides, it was his contention that a review was sought to be argued as an appeal, which was not the intention of the law. Moreover, there was a delay of 143 days in filing the review application, and there was no explanation for the delay, nor any application for condoning the delay. The application had therefore to be dismissed.