IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2010 MR. BHOLU V. NAIK ... Petitioner Versus VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AT MARCAIM THROUGH SARPANCH OF MARCAIM AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Nilesh V. Shet Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd April, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Order dated 18-11-2009 by which the learned Additional Director of Panchayats-II has refused permission to the Petitioner to intervene in the appeal filed by Respondent No.2. There is no dispute that at the instance of the Petitioner the Village Panchayat had taken notice of the illegal construction and passed orders of demolition which are the subject matter of appeal before the Additional Director. Shri V. Rodrigues, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has submitted that not only the action by the Village Panchayat was initiated at his client's behest but the Petitioner had also been shown as tenant in respect of the property surveyed under Survey No.350/2. Shri Shirodkar, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 submits that the dispute, if any, raised by the Petitioner ought to be raised before the Civil Court. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner's name is shown in the other rights column. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Alwyn D'Cunha v. Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence and another(2006(2) Goa L.R. 368). Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the said Judgment was considered by another Single Judge of this Court in an unreported Judgment dated 15-4-2009 in the case of Shri Laxman Candolkar v. The Village Panchayat of Candolim in Writ Petition No.744 of 2008. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 submits that as a matter of practice and procedure the appellate authorities do allow the presence of persons at whose instance the authorities take action in relation to illegal construction. In the case of Mr. Alwyn D'Cunha v. Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence and another(supra) the intervenor was said to be a stranger to the property in question. Nevertheless, it was stated that he could challenge the order which may be passed by the appellate authority in case it was adverse to him. In case of Shri Laxman Candolkar v. The Village Panchayat of Candolim through Chief Secretary and another(supra) the person at whose behest notice of demolition was issued by the V.P. was stated to have shown locus, and, therefore this Court declined to interfere with the order which permitted him to intervene. In my view, whether the order of the V.P. is right or wrong will be determined by the Appellate Authority. Jaganath N. Kamat may be the owner of the property but as can be seen from para 4 of the complaint dated 8-10-2007, the Petitioner has some interest in the property. If the Appellate Authorities under the Panchayat Act allow persons at whose instance action is taken by the V.P. to intervene in the appeals, I see no reason why the Petitioner in this case, ought not to have been allowed to intervene in the appeal. They ought to follow an uniform practice. Considering that most of the V.P. do not take action against illegal constructions, unless a complaint is filed and doggedly pursued, it would be in public interest to allow such complainants to assist the Appellate Authorities to come to the right conclusion. Cases where V.P. do not contest the appeals are also not unheard of. Presence of such intervenors will certainly assist the Appellate Authorities to satisfactorily, effectually and completely decide the controversy involved in the appeals. As a result, the petition deserves to succeed. The impugned Order is hereby set aside. The Petitioner to be heard by the appellate authority before deciding Panchayat Appeal No.13 of 2008. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.