IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2008 SHRI. ATMARAM XEMBU POI PALONDICAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR\'S ... Petitioner Versus SMT. SUNDERABAI KRISHNA SHIRODKAR AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. Godinho, for the respondent Nos.1 To 9. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 22nd April, 2009 P.C. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This writ petition challenges the order and judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa dated 29.08.2008 under which the judgment and order dated 14.07.2006 (incorrectly shown as on 10.04.2006) of the Deputy Collector, Margao has been upheld except for the grant of police protection. 3. In the order dated 14.07.2006 the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar has been dismissed. The police protection has been granted. The order of the police protection having been set aside, the rest of the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar has been dismissed. The order of the Mamlatdar dated 31.1.2006 grants mandatory order to the respondents directing the petitioner herein to remove the tin sheets surrounding the dwelling house, open access used by the respondents herein as per the plan approved by South Goa Planning Development Authority dated 5.4.1994 and to reconstruct the demolished toilet within 15 days of the order. 4. The approved plan is not produced. The precise access cannot be seen. However, it is admitted that there is an access exclusively for the respondents herein. That access is blocked by a rotating gate. That gate shall have to be removed to grant the access to the respondents. 5. The respondents further claimes that the other side of the access has a gate leading to the property of the petitioner herein manned by their securityman. Hence, the respondents claimed that their access is interfered with. That contention cannot be accepted. The securityman would work for the benefit of both the petitioner as well as the respondents. The respondents shall be entitled to pass to and fro and can also pass on their motorcycle and bicycle. The securityman of the petitioners shall allow the respondents to pass with their vehicles. 6. The toilet used by the respondents is stated to have been demolished. That aspect has not been seriously contested. However, the petitioners have produced photographs of two other toilets. These toilets are not used by any other person at present. The respondents shall be entitled to use both these toilets. Consequently the respondents cannot be allowed to reconstruct another toilet. 7. The respondents contend that the tin sheets which have been put up by the petitioners are within two metres boundary of the their house which would otherwise be allowed to the applicants if they are declared mundkars of the suit property. 8. The petitioner contends that the house used by the respondents herein is itself more than 200 square metres in area. The respondents also have an open space. The respondents have been allowed a space to pass and repass between the house and the tin sheets. The precise extent of the occupation of the respondents shall have to be determined in the main application. The extent to which they would be entitled is open access around their house, the area of the house and open space enjoyed by the respondents shall have to be considered in the main application. Pending that application removal of the tin sheets would not be an appropriate order of the Mamlatdar. To that extent, the impugned order which allows ultimately the order of the Mamlatdar is required to be modified. The rest of the order needs no interference. The petitioners shall allow the access as stated above to the respondents. The construction put up by the petitioners shall be such that the FSI if any for the area around two metres of the house of the respondents shall not be used. The photographs produced by both the parties and signed by both the Advocates are taken on record. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA