IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 827 OF 2010 COMMUNIDADE OF CALANGUTE REP. BY ITS ATTORNEY, MR. ANTONIO FRANCISCO A. DE. SOUZA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 12 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11. Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No. 7. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 25th April, 2011 P.C.:- The report from the Registry states that Respondent No. 13 could not be served because the address is not correct. 2. In the light of the directions we propose to issue to the Statutory Authority that we need not insist on notice being issued to Respondent No. 13. 3. Our attention is invited by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Rodrigues to a notice issued by the Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka, Mhapsa-Goa, initiating proceeding against Respondent No. 13, directing him to show cause as to why action under the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act should not be initiated against him. 4. In the light of the facts that Mamlatdar has taken action and further, even the issue of conversion has been taken cognizance of by the Deputy Collector under Section 33 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, interest of justice would be served, if, both the Authorities namely, the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector are directed to conclude the proceedings before them, expeditiously and within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. Needless to state that the Village Panchayat of Calangute will have to abide by the Orders that will be made by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector and thereupon, the Village Panchayat should proceed to take an appropriate action under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. 6. The Petition is disposed off, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and rival contentions of the parties. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV