1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.204 of 2001. Shri Amrutrao B. Phadke, r/o H.No.1173, Akhada, St. Estevam, Tiswadi, Goa.. ... Petitioner. V/s 1. The Dy. Collector/S.D.O. & Incharge of Demolition Squad, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Block Development Officer, Tiswadi, Panaji, Goa. 3. Village Panchayat of St. Estevam through its Sarpanch/Secretary, St. Estevam, Tiswadi, Goa. 4. Shri Subhash Phadke, r/o Akhada, St. Estevam, Tiswadi, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. M.S.Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for the Respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. J. Vaz, Advocate for the Respondent no.4. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Dy. Collector, Demolition Squad, Panaji on 19.6.2001, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner is a owner of House No.1173, Akhada, St. Estevam, Tiswadi, Goa. On 27.11.2000 he received a notice dated 22.11.2000 from the Village Panchayat calling upon him to remain present for an inquiry in respect of a complaint against his structure. This inquiry was to be conducted on 24.11.2000. As the notice was received after this date he could not remain present. Thereafter on 15.12.2000, the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat issued a further notice stating that the petitioner should vacate the portion under encroachment and hand over possession to the respondent no.4, Subhash Phadke within seven days of receipt of notice and to reply to the Panchayat within 10 days. The notice concluded with the following sentence: “If he fails, why action should not be taken against him.” 2. The petitioner sent reply on 2.1.2001. Suddenly on 19.6.2001 the Dy. Collector passed the impugned Order and demolition of the petitioner's structure was scheduled on 6.07.2001. The 3 petitioner therefore approached to this Court, and this Court on 5.07.2001 stayed the Order. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of the said Order. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Sonak for the petitioner, Government Advocate Ms. Coutinho for the Respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Vaz for the Respondent no.4. None appeared for respondent no.3, Panchayat. Notice dated 15.12.2000 had in fact merely called upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner, which cause the petitioner had shown by his reply dated 2.1.2001. Without considering the cause shown or hearing the petitioner and without even passing any Order of demolition, suddenly the respondent no.1 Dy. Collector passed the impugned Order directing the Demolition Squad to demolish the toilet. The learned Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 could not show as to how such action could be taken without asmuch as a notice or hearing to the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that his client has filed an Affidavit in reply wherein he had admitted having made a Complaint, about the petitioner's constructing an illegal toilet, encroaching over the respondents property. If that is so, it would be 4 for the respondent no.4 to initiate appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court to recover possession of the property under encroachment. 5. The Village Panchayat would be justified in taking action only if construction is not in accordance with the construction licence granted or obstructed a public road or facility and that too after following prescribed procedure. 6. It is thus clear that the impugned Order is totally unsustainable and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg/-