IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 2010 SMT. MARIQUINHA FREMIOTA D'SOUZA E DO ROSARIO., ... Petitioner Versus THE MORMUGAO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY ... Respondent Mr. V.A. Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Respondent no.4 in person. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 8th July, 2010 P.C: We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13th April, 2010 issued under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 issued by the first respondent, by which the development permisison has been granted to the fourth respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the permisison is illegal on several grounds . He submitted that the authorities were duty bound to hear the petitioner before granting the permission. He further submitted that the fourth respondent could not establish any right in respect of the property in respect of which she has obtained development permission. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for eviction of the fourth respondent, which is pending. 3. One of the grounds of challenge in this petition is that the fourth respondent has no legal right in respect of the property on which she wishes to construct the structure in terms of the impugned permisison. The civil suit filed by the petitioner for possession on the basis of title is pending in the Civil Court. If the fourth respodnent has no legal right to carry out construction, notwithstanding the development permission granted by the local authorities, the petitioner can always apply for appropriate interim relief in the pending suit. 4. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication as regards the issue of illegality of the development permisison granted on 13th April, 2010. The said contention is kept open. If there is any illegality as regards the construction sought to be carried out by the fourth respondent, the authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with law. 5. Subject to what is observed above, we dispose of the writ petition by keeping all the contentions of the parties open. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-