The Bombay High Court at Goa delivered a significant judgment resolving disputes between Goa University and Dr. Suresh B. Shetye regarding the legality and impact of a compound wall constructed by the university, which allegedly blocked access to neighboring properties. The judgment examined compliance with planning laws, easementary rights, and the powers of planning authorities.

The court emphasized the need for proper permissions and clarity in regularization processes under the Town and Country Planning Act, directing that access to neighboring properties must be maintained. It also ruled on the responsibilities of public authorities to balance development with statutory compliance.

I. Background:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner 1: Goa University.
   • Petitioner 2: Dr. Suresh B. Shetye (neighboring landowner).
   • Respondents: State of Goa, Chief Town Planner, and North Goa Planning and Development Authority (NGPDA).

2. Subject Matter:

   • Dispute over a compound wall constructed by the university in 2010, alleged to block access to Dr. Shetye’s properties (Survey Nos. 193, 197, 198).

II. Issues Raised:

1. University's Claim:

   • The compound wall was regularized under a 2018 order of the Greater Panaji Planning and Development Authority (GPPDA).
   • The university is a statutory authority exempt from seeking permissions for construction.

2. Dr. Shetye’s Complaint:

   • The wall was constructed without permission, blocking access to his landlocked properties.

III. Court's Analysis:

1. Legality of Regularization:

   • The 2018 regularization order lacked clarity regarding the compound wall.
   • The court examined whether proper plans and permissions were submitted.

2. Easement Rights:

   • The court reviewed whether the compound wall unlawfully restricted access to neighboring properties.

3. Statutory Compliance:

   • The university’s obligation to follow planning laws under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and other regulations.

4. Jurisdiction of Authorities:

   • Evaluated the powers of the Town and Country Planning Board and NGPDA concerning unauthorized construction.

IV. Decision:

1. Directions to University:

   • Remove blockages to neighboring properties and comply with earlier planning board orders.
   • Submit applications for any further regularizations or developments.

2. On Dr. Shetye's Petition:

   • Authorities were directed to investigate his complaint and take necessary action.

3. Clarifications:

   • The regularization order does not preclude compliance with earlier planning directives.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court reiterated that:

1. Public Authorities' Compliance:
   Statutory authorities must adhere to planning laws and cannot claim immunity.
2. Access Rights:
   Private landowners’ access rights cannot be arbitrarily restricted by public development projects.
3. Regularization Standards:
   Any claim of regularization must be supported by explicit permissions and plans.

Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974:

  • Section 8: Powers of the Town and Country Planning Board.
  • Section 52: Authority to regularize or remove unauthorized developments.

• Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994:

  • Section 66: Requirement for construction permissions.

• Indian Easements Act, 1882:

  • Addressed implied easement rights for access to landlocked properties.

Subjects:

Land Development, Planning Permissions, Easement Rights.

Town Planning, Goa University, Access Rights, Regularization, High Court, Public vs. Private Rights.