1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.518 OF 2009 1. Shri Dashrat Popat Naik Gaonkar, Major of age, resident of Naikwado, Adcolna, Ponda-Goa. 2. Shri Ramdas Popat Naik Gaonkar, Major of age, Resident of Naikwado, Adcolna, Ponda-Goa. …. Petitioners V/s 1. The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat of Bhoma-Adcolna, Ponda-Goa. 2. Shri Anil Fondu Naik Gaonkar, Major of age, resident of Naikwado, Bhoma-Adcolna, Ponda-Goa. …. Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.A. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Amonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27/07/2009 of the Director of Panchayats, in an appeal filed under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 2. The petitioners herein are the co-owners along with respondent no.2, of the property surveyed under Survey No.56/O of Village Adcolna of Ponda Taluka. The respondent no.2 had complained that the 2 petitioners herein had erected several illegal structures/sheds in the said property. 3. First such complaint was made to the Village Panchayat on or about 13/06/2006 with copies to Deputy Collector, Block Development Officer and Deputy Director of Panchayats, then to BDO by letter dated 17/05/2007 and, as there was inaction on their part, the respondent no.2 filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.273/2008 which was disposed of by judgment dated 9/06/2008, after as statement was made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, that the representation dated 30/01/2007 would be decided within a period of one month, whereupon the Deputy Director gave a show cause notice to the petitioners dated 26/06/2008 stating that the petitioners had erected/added/reconstructed certain houses and sheds without the permission from the Village Panchayat of Bhoma-Adcolna. 4. The petitioners filed their reply dated 10/07/2008 and thereafter the Deputy Director by order dated 28/08/2008 dismissed the said complaint dated 30/10/2007 of respondent no.2, on the ground that the complaint related to use of change of land from agricultural to non- agricultural use and nuisance being created by causing health hazards by people. The Deputy Director observed that the said complainant/ 3 respondent no.2 intended the Deputy Director to investigate into illegal conversion of land which was not within her power and withdraw the show cause notice for want of jurisdiction. 5. The respondent no.2 then filed the appeal before the Director of Panchayats, Panaji which has been disposed of by order dated 27/07/2009, by the Additional Director, impugned in this Writ Petition. 6. Before filing of the Writ Petition, it appears that the subject structures were inspected by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat on 22/06/2007 in the presence of both the parties and the structures were identified and thereafter the BDO had also issued a notice dated 4/07/2007 to the Village Panchayat to take action, but no action was taken. This was after the BDO had himself carried out a panchanama on 27/06/2007 in the presence of the Sarpanch. The learned Director of Panchayats observed that the Deputy Director after satisfying itself had assumed powers and had issued show cause notice and yet came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction forgetting that the complaint was a representation of the complainant referring to all his earlier complaints and bringing to the notice of the Director that the Panchayat had given connection to illegal structures. 7. Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of 4 the petitioners has submitted that in case the Deputy Director was wrong in holding that she had no jurisdiction, the Director of Panchayats ought to have remanded the case to be decided by the Deputy Director. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Deputy Director could not have assumed the powers of the Panchayat as there was no complaint made to the Village Panchayat. 8. Shri Kamat, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Village Panchayat has now submitted that the constructions are illegal and that in compliance with the order of the Director of the Panchayat, such constructions will be demolished and for which demolition squad was already sought by letter dated 14/08/2009, but the demolition process could not be completed because of the stay order given by this Court. 9. Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has submitted that the Director of Panchayats has rightly considered all the aspects of the case and has ordered demolition of the subject structures. Learned Counsel has read the detailed order passed by Director of Panchayats reversing the order of the Deputy Director and issuing the order of demolition. 10. Firstly, it is to be noted that the respondent no.2 had complained 5 to the Village Panchayat about the subject structures being illegal by his complaint dated 13/06/2006. Then the BDO had initiated action by stop work order on 4/07/2007. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 had addressed a representation dated 30/10/2007 to the Deputy Director bringing to his notice that he had also filed a complaint before the BDO, copy of which was endorsed to him/her and further informing the Deputy Director that the BDO had conducted an inspection and had found illegal work going on in the said property and despite that the Panchayat had released electricity connections to the illegal constructions and which showed that the Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary were hand in glove with the petitioners. 11. The Director of Panchayat in a very detailed order has observed that at one stage the petitioner no.2 had given an undertaking to the Village Panchayat on 29/12/2004 that he had done illegal construction of one structure and undertaking to demolish the same in case there was any objection. The Director of Panchayat has also observed that the Village Panchayat had initially acted upon the complaints of respondent no.2 and had identified the illegal constructions erected by the petitioners and had failed to take any action against the petitioners and thus had avoided in exercising its powers under Section 66 of the said Act and with that the respondent no.2 had to approach the High Court in writ jurisdiction, wherein the Government advocate had given an 6 undertaking to look into the representation of respondent no.2. The Director of Panchayats as regards the pleas taken by the petitioners, observed that he had directed the petitioners to produce the documents and license granted by the Village Panchayat in respect of the structures, but they failed to produce any such license or failed to prove that the structures were illegal and were constructed after following the procedure prescribed under the said Act and/or they were existing for the last 60 years as claimed by them. 12. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the Director of Panchayats cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. They are based on the materials produced by the parties before him. The Director of Panchayat had two options before him, either to remand the case to the Deputy Director to decide the issue of illegal constructions afresh or decide the same by himself as an appellate authority. Any issue can be decided in an appeal in case it has not been decided by subordinate authority. That the petitioners have been deprived of a further appeal is neither here nor there. 13. The matter of illegal constructions by the petitioners have been exhaustively dealt with by the Director of Panchayat by a well reasoned order and therefore calls for no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. I find there is no merit in this Writ Petition and, consequently, the same 7 is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent no.2. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-