IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.157 OF 1995 1. Sameer D. Fadte, Ashirwad,Alto-Torda, Bardez, Goa; 2. Arvind Shirodkar, Salvador-do-Mundo, Bardez, Goa ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Mr.Jose Philip, Collector, Panaji, Goa; 2. Administrator of Comunidades of Bardez, Mapusa, Goa; 3. Comunidade of Serula, Salvador-do-Mundo, Bardez, Goa; 4. Sarpanch, Village Panchayat of Penha-de-Franca, Bardez, Goa; 5. The State of Goa through the Secretary of Revenue, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa ... RESPONDENTS. Shri M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Y.V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Shri V.P. Thali, Addl. Advocate General, with Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate,for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C. DAGA,&. : V.C. DAGA,&. : V.C. DAGA,&. P.V. P.V. P.V. HARDAS,JJ. HARDAS,JJ. HARDAS,JJ. DATED : JULY 8, 2002. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER V.C. DAGA,J.) V.C. DAGA,J.) V.C. DAGA,J.) This Petition in the character of - 2 - public interest litigation challenges the allotment of Plot No.4 of Lot No.156 out of Survey No.102/2 located at Penha de Franca, by the Serula Comunidade,to the Respondent No.1, being illegal and void. 2. By Application dated 25th April, 1986 as amended by Application dated 20th June,1988, the Respondent No.1 had applied for allotment of the aforesaid plot with the intention to construct his house on the said plot. The process of allotment took considerable time and finally the plot was allotted to him on 31-3-1995. 3. This Writ Petition came to be filed at the instance of the present Petitioners challenging the said allotment. The Petition was ruled by this Court and by an interim relief the Respondent No.1 was prevented from proceeding with the construction and/or development on the plot. The interim relief has been in operation since 1995. 4. This Petition was taken up for final adjudication. After having heard the Petitioners, the Respondents were called upon to - 3 - justify the allotment of the plot in favour of the allottee, Respondent No.1. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 produced one letter dated 8th July, 2002 addressed to him by the Respondent No.1 informing him that considering the considerable lapse of time, he is no longer interested in retaining the Plot No.4 which was allotted to him on 31-3-1995. Consequently, the Respondent No.1, allottee, prayed that his Applications for allotment dated 25-4-1986 and 20-6-1988 be treated as withdrawn and that the Plot No.4 allotted to him could be treated as reverted back to the Comunidade of Serula, the Respondent No.3. In the last para of the said letter, there is a specific authorisation in favour of the Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 to make statement in this behalf before this Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. The original letter is produced by Shri Yogesh Nadkarni, Advocate, for being taken on record. Accordingly, said letter duly endorsed by him is taken on record and marked ’X’ for identification. In this view of the matter and development during the course of - 4 - hearing of this Petition, the Application for allotment dated 25-4-1986 read with Application dated 20-6-1988 is treated to have been withdrawn. With the withdrawal of the said Applications, needless to mention that the order of allotment of the plot to the Respondent No.1 also stands withdrawn and/or cancelled and it is declared that the plot in question stands reverted back to the Comunidade of Serula (Respondent No.3). 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 also makes a statement that the Respondent No.3 can enter into possession of the said plot at any time even without notice to the Respondent No.1 with existing structure i.e. compound wall standing thereon. 7. In this view of the matter, the Petition stands disposed of in terms of this Order with no order as to costs. V.C. V.C. V.C. DAGA,J. DAGA,J. DAGA,J. P.V. P.V. P.V. HARDAS,J. HARDAS,J. HARDAS,J.