Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Abhish Sharma, is the owner of two flats in A1-Ameen Complex, Santa Cruz, Goa, purchased by a Sale Deed dated 30.5.2011. The building had an occupancy certificate from the Village Panchayat dated 29.8.1996. The petitioner ran a business under the name 'Automotive Resource India Pvt. Ltd' with a trade licence from the Panchayat dated 26.11.2013 and a labour registration certificate dated 9.9.2011. In May 2018, the petitioner agreed to lease the flats to M/s T.I. Enterprises, and the lessee undertook internal modification work. On 3.8.2018, the petitioner received a notice cum order under Section 66(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, from the Block Development Officer, directing demolition of the modifications. The notice was based on a complaint by respondent no.3 (the Housing Society) dated 31.7.2018. The petitioner replied on 8.8.2018 stating that only minor modifications were done, and also filed an appeal under Section 66(7) of the Act. The Additional Director of Panchayat stayed the order on 24.8.2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the notice cum order. The court held that the notice cum order was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court also observed that internal modifications like removal of partition walls and replacement of windows do not amount to 'construction' under the Act. The court quashed the notice cum order dated 3.8.2018 and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Section 66(6) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Notice cum Order - Natural Justice - The court considered whether a notice cum order under Section 66(6) directing demolition of internal modifications without prior hearing is valid. Held that the provision does not contemplate a prior hearing before issuing the notice, but the authority must consider the reply and pass a reasoned order. In this case, the notice itself was the final order, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 7-10) B) Panchayat Law - Section 66(6) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Internal Modifications - The court examined whether internal modifications such as removal of partition walls and replacement of windows amount to 'construction' under the Act. Held that internal modifications not affecting structural stability or external appearance do not constitute unauthorized construction requiring demolition. (Paras 11-12) C) Panchayat Law - Section 66(7) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Appeal - The court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 66(7) which was stayed by the appellate authority. Held that the appeal remedy was available and the petitioner had availed it, but the notice cum order was quashed due to violation of natural justice. (Paras 6, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notice cum order under Section 66(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, directing demolition of internal modifications without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court quashed the notice cum order dated 3.8.2018 and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right of hearing
- Section 66(6) Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- internal modifications not amounting to construction
- appeal remedy under Section 66(7)
- stay order by appellate authority
