Village Panchayat Calangute vs Additional Director Of Panchayat Ii& ...

3. M/s. Kay Jay Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as, ‘the company’) (respondent No.4 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1758 of 2011) was granted permission by the appellant in 2006 for raising construction on property bearing Survey No. 362/12 and part of Survey No. 362/10 at Porbawado, Calangute, Bardez. The company is said to have illegally constructed a wall and thereby blocked access to the water well situated in Survey No.362/10 and the chapel situated beyond Survey No.362/12 as also the existing water drains. When the local residents complained against the illegal construction, the appellant passed resolution dated 24.03.2008 for revocation of the occupancy certificate, which was issued by the Secretary on the basis of what were termed as manipulated resolutions passed on 22.12.2007 and 28.02.2008. The appellant passed another resolution dated 25.3.2009 and revoked the permission granted to the company. The latter challenged the same by filing Panchayat Petition No.6/2009 on the ground that the decision taken by the appellant was contrary to the rules of natural justice. On realizing that the action taken by it was not proper, the appellant revoked resolution dated 25.03.2009. Thereafter, the Sarpanch issued notice dated 29.7.2009 under Section 64 of the Act and directed the company to stop further construction. Simultaneously, he fixed 4.8.2009 as the date for inspection of the site. The company challenged the notice in Panchayat Appeal No.12/2009. Respondent No.1 - the Additional Director of Panchayat entertained the appeal and passed an ex-parte interim order dated 3.8.2009.

5. It is borne out from the record that some residents had also filed complaint before Block Development Officer, Bardez, Goa against the illegal construction raised by the company and the consequential blockage of access to the well and change of the natural flow of rain water resulting in water logging. Initially, the Block Development Officer passed an injunction order against the company but after considering the latter’s reply, he dismissed the complaint by observing that the construction made by the company was not illegal and any restriction on the use of property would seriously prejudice its cause.

6. The appellant challenged orders dated 3.8.2009 and 30.11.2009 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Block Development Officer in Writ Petition No.16/2010 on the ground that respondent No.1 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the notice issued under Section 64 of the Act and, in any case, such notice could not be stayed under Section 178. It was also pleaded that even if the appeal filed by the company was treated as maintainable, there was no justification to pass an interim order which had the effect of allowing the appeal. As regards the order of the Block Development Officer, it was pleaded that he could not have exercised power under Section 66 of the Act and disposed of the complaint filed by the local residents and thereby allowed the company to continue the illegal construction which had effectively blocked access to the water well and the chapel.

(2) When the Director makes an order under sub-section (1), he shall forthwith forward to the Government and the Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat affected thereby a copy of the order with a statement of the reasons for making it, and the Government may confirm or rescind the order or direct that it shall continue to be in force with or without modification permanently or for such period as it thinks fit:

(2) The Appellate Authority may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard and after such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the appeal and its decision shall be final.

201-A. Appeal on miscellaneous matter dealt by the Panchayats. — (1) Where no appeal has been specifically provided in this Act on any miscellaneous matter which is dealt with by the Panchayat or the Village Panchayat Secretary or the Sarpanch, an appeal shall lie to the Block Development Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of refusal of any request by the said authority and his decision on such appeal, subject to the provision of sub- section (2), shall be final.

Explanation:— For the purpose of this section, "refusal" means rejecting of any request in writing or non conveying of any reply to the application within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of application in his office.

(2) A revision shall lie to the Deputy Director against any order passed by the Block Development Officer under sub-section (1) within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. ” SCHEDULE – I FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT I. General functions:

27. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petitions filed by appellant are restored to their original numbers. The High Court shall now issue notice to the respondents and decide the writ petitions on merits.

28. It will be open to the appellant to apply for interim relief. If any such application is filed, then the High Court shall decide the same on its own merits.