1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 89 OF 2009 Shri Prashant Madhu Fadte, r/o Kundaim-Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Baby Raghu Fadte d/o. Raghu Fadte, major of age, 2. Ratan Raghu Fadte, d/o. Raghu Fadte, major of age, 3. Shoba Raghu Fadte, d/o. Raghu Fadte, major of age, Represented by their Attorney, Shri Ramkrishna Kashinath Parab, r/o Gawandal, Kumbarjua, Goa. 4. The Village Panchayat, Kundaim, through its Sarpanch, Kundaim-Goa. ... Respondents Shri J. F. Mello, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 4TH APRIL, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER Heard Shri J. F. Mello, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The dispute between one Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte and Shri Prashant Madhu Fadte is in respect of a house which is registered under No.531 in Panchayat Records. The said house stood in the name of the said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte. The Petitioner Shri Prashant Madhu Fadte filed an application to change the name of Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte from the records and insert his name in her place and after the said change was effected it was brought to the notice of the said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte by the Panchayat vide their letter dated 28-10-2000. The said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte preferred an appeal to the Director of Panchayats and the Director of Panchayats by Order dated 1-4-2004 set aside the said transfer of name and also directed a copy of his order to be forwarded to the Secretary(Panchayats), Government of Goa in terms of sub-section(2) of Section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The reference made was considered by the Secretary(Panchayats) and by Order dated 8-1-2009 the Secretary(Panchayats) upheld the order of the Additional Director of Panchayats. 3. Shri J. F. Mello, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the said change was effected by the Panchayat pursuant to a letter received from Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte. However, it is seen that this point was not taken either by the present Petitioner or the Respondent No.4/Village Panchayat before the Additional Director, and the Respondents herein were proceeded ex-parte 3 before the Additional Director. It is difficult to accept that in case the said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte had given the said letter dated 30-1-1965 to transfer the name of the house in the name of Shri Prashant Madhu Fadte she and others would prefer the appeal to the Director of Panchayats. The Director of Panchayats observed that the Petitioner as well as the Village Panchayat had not filed any reply nor had forwarded any documents to justify the action, and further accepted the case of the said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte and others. In the reference before the Secretary, it appears that written submissions were filed on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the contention that the change of name was effected pursuant to letter dated 31-6-1995 of the said Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte was not urged and what is submitted now is that it was taken up in written submissions filed. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the Petitioner or for that matter the Village Panchayat allowed the matter to proceed ex-parte before the Director of Panchayats, and if it was proceeded ex-parte as to why they took no action to get it set aside assuming that that remedy was available in law to the Petitioner. Both the authorities have come to the conclusion that the action of changing the name in respect of the said house from Smt. Ratan Raghu Fadte to the name of the Petitioner was illegal. Petitioner is certainly entitled to other remedies. In view of the concurrent findings, this is not a fit case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD