IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2010 SHRI MARUTI HALLIKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BASTORA AND ANR ... Respondent Nigel D'Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th June, 2010 P.C. Heard. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order of the Director of Panchayats, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against Order dated 27.8.2009 passed by the Village Panchayat of Bastora. 2. There is no dispute that compound wall which has been constructed by the petitioner herein is in the property which is presently vested in the Village Panchayat. It appears that petitioner was earlier permitted by the Municipality, when the land belonged to it, to construct a house of 50sq.mts., and the allegation is that the petitioner has extended the said house to about 128sq.mts regarding which separate proceedings are pending. 3. Petitioner constructed a wall in front of his house which according to respondent no.1, Village Panchayat, the said wall was constructed with a view to extend the house further by extending the roof of the existing house over the said wall. The said wall is depicted in red by the learned counsel of the petitioner, on plan at page 95 of paper book. The said wall was ordered to be demolished by the Village Panchayat. A Writ petition was filed and it was disposed on 6.8.2009, bearing Writ Petition no. 326/2009 with a direction that in case the petitioner files an application for regularisation, it be decided on or before 31.8.2009. 4. The said application has now been decided by the Village Panchayat by the said Order dated 27.8.2009. One of the reason assigned by the Village Panchayat is that the petitioner did not produce a NOC from the owner. Admittedly the owner of the land is none other than the Village Panchayat. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the Village Panchayat is the owner of the land, the village panchayat could have given NOC to the petitioner before the suit construction could be reguarlised. 5. The petitioner certainly cannot compel the village panchayat that he should be allowed to built a wall in the land which does not belong to the petitioner but belongs to the village panchayat. The village panchayat was not only the owner of the land but also the authority saddled with duty to take action against illegal constructions or its regularisation. The petitioner did not take permission to construct the wall from the Village panchayat as owner of the land nor licence from the village panchayat as required under the Goa Panchayats Raj Act, 1994. The village panchayat has now chosen not to regularise the illegal construction on land which does not belongs to the petitioner but belong to the village panchayat. 6. In the above view of the matter no useful purpose would be served by entertaining this Writ Petition. Consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn