IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2010 SMT. ROHINI B. MANDREKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.Kankonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr.D. Pangam,Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 5 to 16. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 10th August, 2010 P.C. Heard Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1, 3 and 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 as well as learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 16. 2. By this Writ Petition a prayer is made for issue of Writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take action of demolition of the construction carried out by predecessor of respondent nos. 5 to 16. There is a challenge to the resolution/order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the village panchayat. It must be stated here that the resolution/order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the second respondent village panchayat has been modified. In the Affidavit dated 29th July, 2010 filed by the Sarpanch of second respondent village panchayat, it is stated that on 28th July, 2010 by passing a resolution, the village panchayat has modified earlier resolution dated 28th April,2010. The modified resolution reads thus:- "That Laximikant Naik directed to file application for regularisation of the reconstruction of the residential structure erected by his late father Mukund Baburao Naik within 30 days, which will be decided in accordance with Law. And that if application not filed within 30 days the house structure will be directed to be demolished by the panchayat." 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 16 stated on instructions that the said respondents have accepted the modified resolution/ order dated 28th July, 2010 and in fact he stated that the said respondents intend to apply in terms of modified resolution. 4. The modified resolution clearly records that the proposal for regularisation will be decided in accordance with law. This modification substantially takes care of the grievance of the petitioner. It is obvious that proposal for regularisation submitted by concerned respondents has to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be heard on the application for regularisation. Considering the nature of the dispute, we will have to direct second respondent to take into consideration the objections which may be raised by the petitioner to the proposal for regularisation. 5. It is obvious that if the application for regularisation is finally rejected, an action will have to be taken by the second respondent of demolition of the offending structure in as much as the very fact that application for regularisation is ordered to be made shows that the construction is not authorised. 6. Apart from this, if according to the petitioner the structure has been erected on making an encroachment on her property, it is open for the petitioner to seek for appropriate remedy for removal of the alleged encroachment. 7. Hence we dispose of the petition by passing following Order:- i. We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 16 that the said the respondents have accepted the modified resolution dated 28th July, 2010 and that they intend to make an application for regularisation in terms of modified resolution. We direct that notice of said application for regularisation shall be issued to the petitioner and and the objections raised by the petitioner to the regularisation shall be taken into consideration by the second respondent before taking any decision on application for regularisation. Application for regularisation shall be decided on its own merits. ii. Application shall be decided within a period of 6 weeks from the date of filing. iii. It is obvious that the application for regularisation shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Goa panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. iv. In the event the application for regularisation is rejected, the second respondent will proceed to demolish the offending structure as expeditiously as possible. v. It will be open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy for removal of alleged encroachment. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn