Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and Dr. Seetaram Vithal Korgaonkar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 9/09/2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissing their appeal under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioners had complained to the Village Panchayat of Korgaon (respondent no.4) that respondent no.1 was constructing on common property without permission. The Panchayat issued a stop order, but respondent no.1 continued construction. The Panchayat later granted permission for the construction. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Director, who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Panchayat had already granted permission and that a civil suit regarding the same property was pending between the parties. The petitioners argued that the Panchayat had no power to grant permission for illegal construction and that the construction violated the stop order. The court, after hearing arguments, noted that the Deputy Director had considered the pending civil suit and that the Panchayat had granted permission. The court found no error in the Deputy Director's order and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Construction Permission - Section 66 Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Mandatory Permission - The court considered whether the Panchayat's grant of permission for construction on common property was valid despite a stop order and pending civil suit - Held that the Deputy Director's dismissal was justified as the civil suit regarding the property was pending and the Panchayat had granted permission (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Panchayats was justified in dismissing the appeal against the Panchayat's grant of construction permission, given the alleged illegality and pending civil suit.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 9/09/2008 is upheld.
Law Points
- Mandatory permission for construction under Section 66 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- No power to grant permission for illegal construction
- Stop order violation
- Pending civil suit ousts panchayat jurisdiction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 82
Writ Petition No.616 of 2008
Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar for Petitioners, Shri D. Pangam for Respondents No.1 to 3, Shri P. Karpe, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.5
Shri Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and Dr. Seetaram Vithal Korgaonkar
Shri Gurudas B. Korgaonkar, Shri Ramesh B. Korgaonkar, Shri Rajan B. Korgaonkar, Village Panchayat of Korgaon, and The Additional Director of Panchayats
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissing appeal against Panchayat's grant of construction permission.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Deputy Director's order and direction to demolish the construction.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that respondent no.1 was constructing on common property without permission and despite a stop order, and the Panchayat illegally granted permission.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissed appeal No.56/2008 on 9/09/2008, holding that Panchayat had granted permission and a civil suit was pending.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Director was justified in dismissing the appeal given the alleged illegal construction and stop order.
Whether the pending civil suit ousts the jurisdiction of the Panchayat authorities.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act mandates permission for construction, and the Panchayat had no power to grant permission for illegal construction, especially after a stop order.
Respondents argued that the Panchayat had granted permission in accordance with law and a civil suit regarding the property was pending, so the Deputy Director correctly dismissed the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Director's dismissal of the appeal was justified because the Panchayat had granted permission for the construction and a civil suit regarding the same property was pending between the parties, which made it inappropriate for the Panchayat authorities to exercise jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 9/09/2008 whereby the Panchayat Appeal No.56/2008 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 came to be dismissed.
The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Deputy Director dismissed the said appeal on the ground that as the local Panchayat/respondent no.4 had already granted permission in terms of law the question of directing demolition of such construction would not arise.
The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director and pointed out that the Deputy Director has also considered that a Civil Suit is pending between the respondents and the petitioners with regard to the same house and, as such, the question of exercising jurisdiction would not arise.
Procedural History
Petitioners lodged complaint with Village Panchayat regarding construction on common property. Panchayat issued stop order but later granted permission. Petitioners filed appeal under Section 66(7) before Deputy Director of Panchayats, who dismissed it on 9/09/2008. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 66, Section 66(7)
