IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2009 SHRI. NAMDEV D. SUTAR THROUGH ATTORNEY S. N. SUTAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. V. Tamba, Government Advocate for respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 5th July, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner herein was given a show cause notice dated 24.7.1991 by the Deputy Collector that he has encroached on the Government land. The petitioner filed reply to the same vide reply dated 19.9.2000 stating that he had built a house on the encroached portion admeasuring 250 sq.mts of survey no. 52/1 way back in 1972 for which he was paying house tax, etc. Thereafter the petitioner did not pursue the proceedings of the said show cause notice and it appears that the petitioner's counsel remained absent on 29.8.2001 and 5.12.2001 as a result of which ex-parte order dated 31.3.2003 followed, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the encroachment made by him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal against the said ex-parte order and the Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the same by order dated 18.3.2009, impugned in this Writ Petition. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner in reply to the to the show cause notice has admitted that he had encroached upon the Government land but he submits that there was policy of government that those who encroached prior to 1.3.1971 were to be considered for regularisation for which his applications are pending. 3. Shri Tamba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that against the order dated 18.3.2009 a revision is provided to the Government under relevant provisions of Land Revenue Code. Without going into the merits of the said submission, in my view, impugned order of the learned Administrative Tribunal cannot be faulted. Firstly, as already pointed out by the learned Administrative Tribunal, there is clear admission that the petitioner has encroached on Government land of survey no.52/1 and petitioner was very much represented before the Deputy Collector on 28.1.2001 and 5.12.2001 and thereafter they did not follow up the proceedings as a result order dated 31.3.2003 came to be passed against him. There is nothing perverse or illegal about the impugned Order dated 18.3.2009. Nevertheless, Mr. Kakodkar submits that the matter of regularisation of the petitioner's encroachment is still under consideration of the Government and in this regard Shri Kakodkar pointed out letters dated 31.7.1990 at page 45-A and 3.9.2004 at page 45-D. 4. Counsel on behalf of Government submits that the matter of regularisation of petitioner's encroachment in survey no. 52/1 has been rejected and the said two letters pertains to encroachment carried out by the petitioner in survey no. 52/2. Shri Kakodkar, submits that petitioner has made it clear in this Writ petition that petitioner is seeking regularisation of his encroachment in survey no. 52/1 and not in survey no. 52/2 as wrongly mentioned in the said two letters. If that be the case let the matter of regularisation of the petitioner under survey no. 52/1 in case still pending before the Government, the same be considered in accordance with law and a decision be taken within a period of 3 months. 5. With the above observations this Writ petition is disposed of. 6. It is made clear that the observation made herein will not come in the way of regularisation of the petitioner's encroachment in survey no. 52/1 of Pilliem-Dharbandora. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn