Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenged an order dated 17/06/2015 passed by the Appellate Authority and an order dated 06/10/2017 passed by the District Judge in Civil Revision, which confirmed a demolition order issued by the Village Panchayat of Orlim. The Panchayat had directed the demolition of certain constructions on the property of the respondents, Felix Rebello and Maria Feliciana Rebello, on the ground that they were unauthorized. The petitioners, who claimed to be the owners or interested parties, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa, seeking to quash these orders. The main legal issue was whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities. The petitioners argued that the construction was not unauthorized and that the Panchayat had acted without jurisdiction. The respondents, represented by the Panchayat and the individual landowners, contended that the construction was illegal and that the authorities had correctly ordered demolition. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the scope of Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or perverse findings, and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any such error. The court noted that the Panchayat and the Appellate Authority had concurrently found the construction to be unauthorized, and there was no material to suggest that this finding was perverse or without evidence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the demolition order. The judgment was pronounced on 9th October 2018 by Justice Nutan D. Sardessai.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court under Article 227 does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity in findings - Held that concurrent findings of fact by the Panchayat and Appellate Authority regarding unauthorized construction cannot be interfered with in the absence of such error (Paras 4-6). B) Panchayat Law - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition Order - The Panchayat has the power to order demolition of unauthorized constructions under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity in the demolition order passed by the Panchayat and confirmed by the Appellate Authority (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the concurrent findings of the Panchayat and the Appellate Authority regarding unauthorized construction and the demolition order.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The orders of the Appellate Authority dated 17/06/2015 and the District Judge dated 06/10/2017 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- supervisory jurisdiction
- concurrent findings of fact
- unauthorized construction
- Panchayat Raj Act
- demolition order
- jurisdictional error
- perversity
