IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 252 OF 2008 MR. SUBHASH P. S. NAVELKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ASSOLNA THROUGH SARPANCH / SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes,Advocate for the petitioners. Ms W. Coutinho, Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 And 3. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 4th August, 2008 P.C. 1. Upon notice, the added respondent No.4 is present. 2. With the consent of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Counsel for the respondent No.4, the petition is placed on board and disposed of finally. 3. We are informed that the Village Panchayat which has been impleaded as respondent No.1 has been duly served. 4. The petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to implement and execute an order dated 17.9.2001 passed by the Director of Panchayats in Panchayat Appeal No.60/99. That order directs demolition of the illegal construction more specifically set out in paragraphs 20(i) of the petition. It is undisputed before us that the Director of Panchayats passed an order under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 while taking cognizance of an Appeal preferred before him. 5. The petitioner complains that despite the order being passed way back on 17.9.2001, the respondent No.4 challenged the same and has stalled the implementation and execution of the said order. Resultantly, illegal construction carried out at the site has not been demolished. 6. After notice was issued, the respondent No.4 appeared through his Advocate on 10.6.2008 and made a statement that the respondent No.4 intends to approach the Supreme Court of India against the order passed by this Court in an Appeal preferred by him. 7. At the request of the Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4,matter was adjourned till today. 8. Today when the matter is called out, the respondent No.4 is present in the Court. Through his Counsel, he gives undertaking that he would demolish the illegal construction more particularly mentioned in the above mentioned paragraph of the petition and the order dated 17.9.2001. He states through his Counsel that the demolition will be carried out by the respondent No.4 at his costs, charges and expenses on or before 30.9.2008. 9. In the light of this statement made, which is accepted as an undertaking to this Court, nothing survives in the writ petition and it stands disposed of. 10. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 makes a statement that no proceedings are pending in any Court or before any authority with regard to subject construction and that order dated 17.9.2001 has gained finality. The said order having gained finality, it has to be implemented is the undisputed position accepted by the authorities who are being represented by the Govt. Advocate. 11. In such circumstances, accepting the undertaking by the respondent No.4 that demolition will be carried out on or before 30.9.2008, we direct that subject construction shall not be demolished till that date so as to enable the respondent No.4 to comply with his undertaking given to the Court. The respondent No.4 through his Advocate makes a statement that the portion which is termed as illegal and unauthorised under the order of Director of Panchayats dated 17.9.2001, is in possession of tenants. He is collecting rent from them. They have no independent rights in the property and each one of them has been inducted by the respondent No.4 as landlord/owner of the premises. Thus, they claim to be in possession through respondent No.4. In such circumstances, he assures the Court that there will be no obstruction or impediment in demolition of the structure and illegal portion/structure would be demolished by him at his risk and he would remove any obstruction from any quarters in that behalf. 12. Such being the sweep of the statement we have permitted retention of the structure at site till 30.9.2008. Needless, therefore, to state that if the undertaking is not carried out, then, in addition to the respondent No.4 being proceeded for contempt of this Court's order and direction so also undertaking given today, the authorities will proceed to demolish the subject structure and if necessary, with police assistance. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Since the respondent No.4 has given undertaking to demolish the construction at his own costs and expenses, we do not impose any costs on him in this petition. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. SMA