IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA, PANAJI First Appeal No.166 of 2006 1. Shri Patricio Cruz (expired), r/o Castel Vaddo, Nagoa, Salcete, Goa Since deceased, represented by legal heirs: 1a. Angelina Cruz 1b. Juliet Cruz 1c. Carmel Cruz 1d. Franky Cruz 1e. Sandra Cruz, All residents of Castel Waddo, Nagoa, Salcete, Goa. ….... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Village Panchayat of Verna...(deleted), Nagoa, represented by the Secretary, V.P., V.P. Office, Nagoa, Verna, Goa. 2. Communidade of Nagoa Verna, represented by the Procurador/Attorney, Verna Nagoa, Salcete, Goa. 3. Administrator of the Communidade, Communidade Bldg., Margao, Salcete, Goa. 4. Collector, South Goa District, Margao, Goa. ….... Respondents. Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 3 and 4. Coram: R.P. Sondurbaldota, J. Date: 16th September, 2011. 2 ORAL ORDER: This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2006 of the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track-I, South Goa, Margao dismissing the suit filed by the appellants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from removing, demolishing, destroying or damaging the suit stall or any portion thereof except by due process of law. Taking into consideration the developments pending the appeal, the same can be disposed off without going into the rival contentions in the suit. 2. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 states that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.3 has issued notices to the appellants dated 30/4/2007 bearing Case No.1/28/Nagao/2007-2008/75 calling upon them either to vacate the land in their occupation by 6/6/2007 or to appear before the respondent no.3 on 7/6/2007 to show cause as to why they should not be evicted under Article 371 of the Code of Communidades, amended by the Goa Legislative Diploma No.2070 dated 15/4/1961. The appellants sent joint reply vide letter dated 2/5/2007 challenging the decision of respondent no.2 to evict them and also making a reference 3 to the pendency of the present proceedings. In view of this initiation of the due process of law by the respondents the appeal has in fact become infructuous. However, since the respondents are yet to take final decision on the show cause notice and since the reply dated 2/5/2007 is not a detailed reply to the notice, in my opinion, interest of justice can be served by disposing off the appeal with following directions: i) The appellants shall give additional reply to the notice dated 30/4/2007 within a period of four weeks from today. ii) Respondent no.3 shall take final decision on the show cause notice after giving due hearing to the appellants and communicate the same to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the reply. iii) Respondent nos.3 and 4 shall not demolish the suit stall or dispossess the appellants therefrom for a period of ten weeks from today. iv) All the contentions taken up by the appellants regarding the legality of their possession of the suit stall are kept open. 4 v) Respondent no.3 shall consider the cause shown by the appellants in their reply without being influenced by the impugned judgment and order. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Ap/-