ANANT NARAIN KAMAT Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT MAEM-VAINGINIM, MAEM, BICHOLIM, GOA ; COLLECTOR FOR NORTH GOA; GOVERNMENT OF GOA; VISHNOO YESHWANT KAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 Village Panchayat of Maem-Vainginim to enforce its public duties as incorporated in the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats Regulation, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he is one of the co- owners of a property known as 'Bhatulem' alias 'Poiratil Shir' described in the Land Registration Office under No. 16423 and under Matriz No. 184 having therein undivided l/3rd right. The petitioner avers that respondent No.4 has 1/9th share in the said property and the remaining belongs to the other members of Kamat family. In the recent survey of lands this property Bhatulem stands recorded in the name of the respondent No.4 showing him as its sole occupant. According to the petitioner the recording of the name of the respondent No.4 against this property is a fraudulent act firstly for the reason that he suppressed the names of the co- owners and secondly got the same property described as Poira with ulterior motive. On obtaining a licence from the Village Panchayat, the respondent No.1 on 3rd January, 1987, the respondent No.4 started constructing a house. The petitioner on coming to know of making of this construction instituted a Civil Suit bearing N0.8 of 1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim for a permanent injunction restraining respondent No.4 from making the construction and also for a mandatory injunction for demolition. He took out a motion for temporary injunction pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit but, however, the trial Court on finding that the construction has come up to lintel stage, on an undertaking furnished by respondent No.4 that he would demolish the house in the event the suit goes against him, vacated the exparte injunction on 20th July, 1988, granted earlier. An appeal taken by the petitioner against the same was unsuccessful as the learned District Judge affirmed the Order of the trial Court and this happened on 28th April, 1989. The matter however did not rest there and a revision was taken being Civil Revision Application No.93 of 1989 which was brought up before the Vacation Judge on 5th May, 1989 (one of us Kamat, J.), when, on hearing the counsel for the petitioner, interim injunction was refused at the same time observing that the construction sought to be made by respondent No.4 is at his risk and subject to the undertaking already given by him. It is common ground that this Civil Revision Application No.93 of 1989 has not been disposed of till today.

(3.) At the threshold the maintainability of this petition has been challenged by Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, on two preliminary grounds.