1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2008 1. Shri Vinod R. Kholkar 2. Smt. Sonia V. Kholkar Both resident of Deulwada, Marcela, Ponda, Goa. .... Petitioners V/s 1. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, alto Porvorim, Goa. 2. Village Panchayat of Tivre-Orgao, Through its Sarpanch/Secretary. 3. Advocate Gopal V. Tamba, Mahajan of Sausthan Shri Devki Krishna, Rawalnath, Pandawada, Marcela-Goa. .... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Amonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. V.R. Tamba, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 28 th APRIL, 2008 ORAL ORDER : This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Additional Director Panchayat, Panaji dated 4/10/2007 in Panchayat Appeal No. 18/2007, dismissing the petitioners' appeal against the order of demolition passed by the Village Panchayat of Tivre-Orgao through its 2 Sarpanch/Secretary. 2. The action was initiated against the petitioners by the Village Panchayat, Tivre-Orgao for demolition of the construction within ten days of the notice dated 13/11/2006. The Village Panchayat came to the conclusion that the petitioners had constructed a new structure of a ground floor and a first floor, apparently in the garb of carrying out reconstruction on the existing plinth area. The Village Panchayat, therefore, directed demolition. Apparently, no action was taken, hence, the respondent approached the Deputy Director of Panchayat, who came to the conclusion that there is no permission and, therefore, directed the Sarpanch to take action on the complaint of the respondents in terms of the Goa, Daman and Diu Regularisation Rules and the provision of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Director of Panchayat who has observed the matter in great detail and come to the conclusion as follows: “There is no whisper either in the entire material before the Dy. Director of Panchayats or before the Block Development Officer or even before this authority that plans for ground plus one building was at any time approved and that permission was granted by any authority for the same. Interestingly, it has to be noted that now after a span of about 6-7 years, the plans of the existing buildings are being submitted to the Village Panchayat for retrospective approval and necessary action likewise representations are being made to the Town and Country Planning, Block Development Officer and this office for regularization of constructions.” 3 3. The Deputy Director of Panchayat has therefore directed demolition in terms of Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 4. Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly urged that the action of demolition is illegal, since the petitioners have permission as contemplated by law. This contention cannot be upheld in view of the fact that the petitioners have 'no objection certificate' dated 24/01/2001 for carrying out repairs without extending the plinth area, on the existing structure. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' application for regularization is pending before the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Goa. However, the learned Counsel has not been able to point out any provision of regularization of such structures under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. That apart, Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 points out that by letter dated 01/08/2007, the Town Planner has written to the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat that the proposal has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not deny the rejection, on instructions from the respondent. In this view of the matter, there does not appear to be error of law apparent on the face on record. 5. Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners however, submits that the rejection of the regularization is not on merits and that the 4 construction is lawful, since the construction is actually made in accordance with regularization. There is no merit in this contention, since obviously a construction may be in accordance with the rule but may be completely without any authority of law. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition is rejected. Mr. De Sa seeks stay of the order. The same is hereby rejected. S.A. BOBDE, J. NH/-