1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 2010 Comunidade of Nagoa by its Attorney Mr. Joao Pereira with office at Margao, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Joaquim Joao Carvalho, 2. Smt. Trinidade Carvalho, 3. Shri Sucorro Carvalho, all residents of mazilvaddo, Nagoa, Salcete, Goa 4. The Deputy Collector and S.D.O. With its office at Margao, Goa 5. The Mamlatdar of Salcette with its office at Margao, Goa 6. Administrative Tribunal, Goa by its Addl. President, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 6. Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Date : - 22 nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT : Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa in Land Revenue Appeal No.83/2001allowing the appeal filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 against the order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by respondent no.4 in case no.LRC/ILLEG-CONV/19/2001. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint to respondent no.4 against respondent no.3, who was then Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Nagoa for constructing the road in the paddy field by filling up the paddy field and for constructing a bungalow without obtaining any permission for conversion sanad in Survey No.98/5 and Survey No.98/25 of village Nagoa belonging to the petitioner. Thereafter, a site inspection was held by respondent no.4 and a sketch and checklist were prepared by respondent nos. 4 and 5. A show cause notice dated 24th March, 2001 was issued to respondent no.3 with an order to stop the development activities. Thereafter, further show cause notices were issued to respondent no.3 by respondent no.4. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed their reply to the show cause notice. By order dated 26th April, 2001, respondent no.4 passed an order directing respondent nos. 1 to 3 to remove the illegal 3 construction done in survey no.99/2 without seeking conversion sanad and to demolish the construction and also remove illegal filling of government nalah with a further direction to remove the katcha road. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal to Administrative Tribunal under Land Revenue Code ('The Code' for short) registered under No.83/2001. The Administrative Tribunal by order dated 22nd December, 2009 set aside the order passed by respondent no.4 primarily on the ground that no formal enquiry has been conducted in terms of Section 179 of the Code. 4. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal having held that no appropriate enquiry was held in relation to the allegations made by the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have directed respondent no.4 to hold formal enquiry after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Mr. Diniz further submitted that the Tribunal could not have set aside the order after holding that no proper enquiry was held and no opportunity was given to respondent nos. 1 to 3. 5. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 supported the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, 4 I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing respondent no.4 to hold a detailed formal enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner and in which respondent no.4 shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Needless to mention that all the contentions of rival parties are kept open. 7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.4 is directed to hold a formal enquiry into the matter and take appropriate decision in terms of the observations made above. Parties to appear before respondent no.4 on 16th December, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. Respondent no.4 shall complete the enquiry expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA