Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions challenging an order dated 24/03/2003 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Goa (Panchayats) under Section 178(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner, Claudio Michael D'Souza, is the owner of a triangular property surveyed under No.121/28 in Parra Village. The property is bounded on three sides by roads, and the junction is perceived as a traffic accident-prone zone. The Gram Sabha of the Village Panchayat passed a resolution on 21/01/2001 recommending that the triangular field be reserved for construction of a traffic island, road broadening, and a garden for tourist attraction, and that no construction be allowed to maintain visibility. The petitioner entered into a development agreement with J.E.F. for construction on the property. The Secretary, after considering the Gram Sabha resolution and the traffic safety concerns, passed the order prohibiting any construction on the property. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Village Panchayat also filed a writ petition supporting the order. The court examined the scope of Section 178(2) of the Act, which empowers the Secretary to prohibit construction if it is necessary in the interest of public safety. The court held that the order was valid as it was based on material showing that the property was a traffic accident-prone zone and that construction would cut visibility, endangering vehicular traffic. The court noted that the Gram Sabha resolution was not binding but provided relevant material. The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Secretary's order.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Section 178(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Power to Prohibit Construction - The Secretary has power under Section 178(2) to prohibit construction if it is necessary in the interest of public safety, including traffic safety. The order must be based on material showing such necessity. In this case, the Gram Sabha resolution and the fact that the property was a traffic accident-prone zone provided sufficient material. (Paras 2-5) B) Panchayat Law - Gram Sabha Resolution - Validity - A Gram Sabha resolution recommending reservation of land for a traffic island and garden is not binding on the Secretary but can be considered as material for exercising power under Section 178(2). The Secretary's order was not based solely on the resolution but on the need for traffic safety. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Reasonable Restrictions - The right to use property is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety. The order prohibiting construction on a triangular plot to ensure visibility and prevent accidents is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 24/03/2003 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Goa (Panchayats) under Section 178(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, prohibiting construction on the petitioner's triangular property, is legal, proper, and valid.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions were dismissed. The order dated 24/03/2003 of the Secretary to the Government of Goa (Panchayats) under Section 178(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was upheld.
Law Points
- Section 178(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- empowers the Secretary to prohibit construction in the interest of public safety
- including traffic safety
- Gram Sabha resolution recommending reservation of land for traffic island and garden is relevant but not binding
- the order must be based on material showing necessity
- the Secretary's order was based on the Gram Sabha resolution and traffic safety concerns.
