1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2009 Mr. Albert Fernandes, son of late Pascol Fernandes, Major of age, resident of near Village Panchayat Chicalim Office, Chicalim Goa. .... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Village Panchayat Chicalim, Through its Secretary, Village Panchayat Chicalim, Chicalim Goa. 2. The Additional Director of Panchayat -II, having office at 3rd Floor, Junta House, Panaji Goa. 3. The State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, having office at Porvarim Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Z. D'Souza,Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Mr. Sameer A. Bandodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2 Coram :- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date :- 30 th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : Heard. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 10.6.2009 of the Additional Director of the Panchayat, upholding the order of demolition dated 26.10.2004 of the Village Panchayat. 3. There is no dispute that after the acquisition of the property of the petitioner, the petitioner herein by virtue of NOC dated 6.8.1986 was allowed to place a stall on football ground on payment of ground rent. There is also no dispute that the petitioner paid the ground rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- which included trade tax as well, for three yearly period. 4. The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the stall was a “katcha stall” but is unable to make any statement whether it was of wooden material or of mud, when it was 3 installed. As can be seen from the photographs which are at page 72, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has converted a temporary stall into a permanent structure and not only of the ground floor but ground plus one and in that process has also extended in the adjoining land which does not belong to the Village Panchayat. According to Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the stall was converted in a manner as seen at page 72, in the year 1992 pursuant to the permission obtained on 4.7.1992 ( at page 56) for repair of the existing stall. It appears that the said permission for repair was used as a ruse to reconstruct and extend the existing stall into a permanent construction for which admittedly the petitioner did not obtain any licence from the Village Panchayat, as required under the Rules in force. 5. The Village Panchayat appears to have issued several show cause notices to the petitioner and thereafter taken up the matter at its meeting on 30.12.2002 when it found that the replies filed by the petitioner were unsatisfactory. However, the decision for demolition was taken. Again four notices were issued but the 4 matter was not taken to its logical end. Thereafter, the impugned demolition order was passed by the Panchayat at its meeting on 26.10.2004. The show cause notice dated 23.10.2003 clearly states that the petitioner had not taken prior permission for construction of RCC laterite stone structure as described therein. The said notice also refers to Section 64(1)(k) of the Act, and, it is the contention of Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Panchayat could not take an action under Section 66 (3) when the show cause notice was issued under Section 64(1)(k) of the Act. The petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. The notice dated 23.10.2003 clearly and rightly mentions that the petitioner had erected a structure of RCC with laterite stones and cement and had covered with zinc sheets without obtaining prior permission of the Panchayat. Therefore, it is clear that the notice is one contemplated under Section 66(3) of the Act. That being the position, it appears that Section 64 (1)(k) was wrongly mentioned. There is no dispute that the resolution or order of demolition was passed by the Village Panchayat under Section 66(3) of the said Act. The petitioner fully knowing about 5 this position had filed an appeal before the Director of Panchayat in terms of Section 66(7) of the Act. The next contention is that the petitioner had filed appeal wrongly upon advise of the Advocate when no such appeal could have been filed, the action having been taken under Section 64(1)(K) of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted. 6. The order of demolition dated 26.10.2004 has been passed after alleged explanation filed by the petitioner to the said notice dated 26.10.2004 was found unsatisfactory. The appeal therefrom has also been rejected considering that the action taken by the Panchayat was in terms of Section 66(3) of the Act and appeal itself having been filed under Section 66(7) of the said Act. The petitioner has not been able to produce either before the authorities below or before this Court any licence for reconstruction of a stall into a permanent construction, granted to him by the Village Panchayat and what can be seen from the photographs and what was found by the Village Panchayat is that a temporary stall erected by the petitioner has been extended by him 6 into a permanent construction of ground plus one, without permission of the Village Panchayat. 7. In the circumstances, therefore, I find that there is no merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. at*