1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 790 OF 2010 Mr. Jerome Velho ... Petitioner. V e r s u s State of Goa Through the Secretary & 6 Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Coram: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date: 25 th April, 2011. P.C:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking writ of mandamus or any other writ, ordering cancellation of modification in the outline 2 development plan by Notification, details of which are stated in paragraph 36 (i) of the Petition. The cancellation is sought in relation to a property which is also described in this prayer clause. The other prayer is for writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the permission dated 13.08.2010, copy of which is annexed as “M1” to this Petition and there is also a relief seeking cancellation of permissions granted by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 6 in July, 2007, November, 2007, February, 2009 and so also construction licences dated 19-11-2007 and 04-03-2009. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lotlikar on behalf of the Petitioner at some length, we are of the opinion that disputed question of facts are raised in this Petition. Essentially, the dispute pertains to the encroachment on the property, on which construction has been made. It is stated that the portion of land surveyed under Chalta No. 1 of P.T. sheet No. 143 of City Survey, Panaji as well as that of Chalta No. 2 of P.T. sheet No. 141 was acquired by 3 Government of Goa, under Land Acquisition Act for institutional and other purposes. 3. On 28th April, 2006, Respondent No. 6 entered into an agreement with respect to the property as well as the plot admeasuring 4752 square metres and forming part of Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 141. It is stated that the agreement permitted Respondent No. 6 to apply for changing the zone and seeking approval for changing of approved plan. It is alleged that thereafter permission was sought and although in paragraph 5 of the Petition it is stated that the outline development plan was changed and thereafter development permission has been granted so also construction licence, what the Petitioner states is that the construction has been carried out by getting the plans sanctioned by misrepresenting the area. Further, it is stated in paragraphs 11.A and 11.B that there was a serious dispute relating to the area of the plot and that Respondent No. 6 had misstated the area which fact was corroborated by demarcation carried out by the Directorate of 4 Survey and Land Settlement, Government of Goa. That was done on an Application made by Respondent No. 6. However, the Planning Authority chose to ignore the same. The Petitioner has thus projected that when the matter relating to the demarcation of the property was pending before the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, the demarcation was carried out by Survey Department. 4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel makes a statement that even today the proceedings are pending before the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panaji. Hence, we are of the view that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Deputy Collector and the Sub- Divisional Officer, it would not be appropriate to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage. It will be proper for the Petitioner to move the Authority including those who have issued the development plan and construction licences, bringing to their notice the mis-calculation of the area on which construction has been carried out. All Authorities will 5 naturally abide by the area calculated by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer and the final Orders thereon, subject of course to the legal rights of the affected parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion and all the contentions and pleas in the Petition will be kept open to be raised before the appropriate Authority at appropriate stage. Needless to state that the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer so also other Authorities dealing with the matter pending before them and who are likely to initiate any action in pursuance of disposal of this matter will deal with it independently and without being influenced by disposal of this Petition. All contentions and pleas of the parties are kept open. Needless to state that action which is impugned in this Petition has not been interferred with at this stage and it will be open to the Petitioner to seek calculation of area and the issues in that behalf are also open. Equally, it is clarified that the Authorities concerned shall abide by all actions and Orders made by the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panaji. 6 5. Considering that the dispute is pending before the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panaji in relation to construction made by Respondent No. 6, it would be desirable, in the interest of justice that the same be concluded expeditiously and he shall endeavour to dispose off the same within six months from the date of receipt of this Order. 6. The Petition is disposed off in the light of the factual disputes raised and limits of writ jurisdiction being clear. There will be no order as to costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. Ev