IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.253/2001 Smt. Antonieta D. Gomes, widow of Menino Gomes, House No.253-A, Banda Arossim, Salcete Goa, represented by her son and constituted attorney Inacio Francisco Gomes, of full age, r/o. H.No.253A, Banda Arossim, Salcete, Goa. ..... Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary with Office at the Secretariat, Panaji, Goa, 2. Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, South Goa, Mormugao, with Office at Vasco da Gama, Goa. 3. Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka, with office at Vasco da Gama, Goa. 4. Village Panchayat of Cansaulim- Arossim-Cuelim, with office at Cansaulim, Goa. 5. Deputy Director of Panchayats, South Goa, with Office at Comunidade Building, Margao, Goa. 6. Administrator of Comunidades, with Office at Communidade Building, Margao, Goa. 7. Inacio Gomes residing at House No. 103/255, Banda, Arossim, Salcete, Goa. .... Respondents. Mr. M.B. D’Costa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. E.O. Mendes, Advocate for respondent No.4-absent. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate for respondent No.7. - 2 - CORAM : N.N. MHATRE & P.V. HARDAS, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per MHATRE, J.) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that respondent No.7 has constructed a structure in a paddy field thereby blocking the free flow of the water causing water logging and irreparable injury to the petitioner who is cultivating the adjoining paddy field. According to the petitioner, the complaints made by her to the Mamlatdar, Dy. Collector and the Private Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, have gone unheeded. The petitioner had also approached the Dy. Director of Panchayats. 2. We find from the pleadings before us that the Sarpanch was requested by Block Development Officer to hold an inquiry under Section 66(3) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and to demolish the structure of respondent No.7 in case it was found to be illegal. On 6.6.2001, the Dy.Director of Panchayats had informed the petitioner that the Secretary had conducted an inquiry and had submitted a report that there was a store room in the paddy field, which had been repaired and, therefore, there was no need to take action against respondent No.7. It was also disclosed in this - 3 - letter that respondent No.7 had been issued a house number, as well as N.O.C. from the Panchayat for repairing the structure and therefore, there is no violation of law on his part. 3. Respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit stating that the permission granted by the Village Panchayat was for repairs to the existing structure of respondent No.7. There was no permission granted for reconstruction or for constructing a new structure. According to the affiant, the structure does not block the free flow of water. In fact, the Village Panchayat was collecting house tax in respect of the structure and, therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that there is no store room on the land has been denied. The affiant has also stated that even prior to the application for repairs, the structure was being assessed for house tax. 4. In the light of these pleadings, we find that there are disputed questions of fact. Whether there was in fact a structure on the paddy field; Whether the structure has been repaired or erected or re-erected; Whether the construction obstructs the free flow of water, thereby causing irreparable damage to the petitioner’s property are all disputed questions of fact. A writ petition is not a proper remedy. The - 4 - petitioner may avail of any other appropriate remedy if available to her, in accordance with law. 5. Hence dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. NISHITA MHATRE, J. P.V. HARDAS, J. ssam.