IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2007 SHRI MANGUESH DEVASTHAN OF PRIOL THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY SHRI SATISH S.S. PILGAONKAR ... Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni and Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Ulhas Tari, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram:- D. B. BHOSALE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 21st January, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Guru Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Ulhas Tari, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. None for Respondent No.2, though served. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for appropriate action against the illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No.3 in the Petitioner's property including the demolition of the said construction and restoring the property in its original position. This Court on 28-12-2007 after hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 passed the following Order:- "Heard Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. Affidavit is placed on record by the Petitioner stating that Respondent No.2 has refused to accept the notice of the petition. Perusal of the petition and annexures as also a copy of the site inspection report, stated to have been conducted by the Panchayat authorities on 11/10/2007, prima facie, disclose that the land in question was a open land without any structure standing therein. Copy of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat in Appeal No.20/2007, which was filed by the Petitioner on account of refusal on the part of Respondent No.2 to grant permission for construction of the compound wall in relation to the concerned area, also nowhere refers to any structure in the said plot. On the contrary, copy of the site inspection report dated 11/10/2007, also specifically records that the site was without any structure being found therein. The complaint dated 26/12/2007 by the Petitioner to the Secretary of the concerned Panchayat, copy of which is to be found at Exhibit F to the petition, specifically alleges that the construction began and was being carried out throughout the night on 25/12/2007 and thereby a structure has been constructed with laterite stones and roofing of asbestos sheets at the site and an attempt on the part of the Petitioner to draw the attention of the Sarpanch of the Village for necessary action to stop the construction, did not yield any result and the Petitioner apprehends that the structure may be used for occupation. There being prima facie case made out for the relief asked for and from the facts and circumstances, as it appears, the delay in grant of ad interim relief will defeat the purpose and as obviously the balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and that the refusal of grant of ad interim relief may result irreparable loss to the Petitioner, ad interim ex-parte relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (c). Issue notice to the Respondents No.2 and 3 for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage, returnable on 21/01/2008. Meanwhile, Respondent No.1 is directed to appoint a responsible Officer of his Department to inspect the site and to submit the report of inspection to this Court, on or before 16/01/2008, with copies to other parties. The Petitioner shall arrange photographer to get photographs at the time of inspection by such Officer. Expenditure in that regard should be borne by the Petitioner. Expedite authenticated copy". In pursuance of this Order the Block Development Officer carried out site inspection and submitted his Report dated 15-1-2008. The Report indicates that the construction is new and about 80% of the construction is complete. The plastering of walls and the tiling is not done so far. The Report further shows that the construction permission was not obtained and in view thereof on 27-12-2007 Village Panchayat has issued letter directing Respondent No.3 to stop the work immediately and produce her documents within seven days. Considering the Order dated 28-12-2007 and the Inspection Report dated 15-1-2008, we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:- It is open for Respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court, if he so desires, so also to the other concerned authorities, in order to protect his right, title and interest, if any, in the property, and the construction in question by obtaining appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to the orders, if any, passed either by Civil Court or by appropriate authority protecting the construction in question, Respondent No.1 shall take action of demolition in accordance with law. Ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (C) shall remain operative subject to orders, if any, passed either by the Civil Court or any other appropriate Authority, in the proceedings that would be initiated by Respondent No.3 in pursuance of this order. With these observations Writ Petition is disposed of. D. B. BHOSALE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.