Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a village group and its president, filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging development permissions dated 09.09.2010 and 22.06.2012, and a construction licence dated 29.06.2012 granted by Respondent No. 2 (Addl. Collector) in favour of Respondent No. 5. The petitioners contended that an old two-storeyed building known as 'Zuari Hotel' had an open space surrounded by a projection of the first floor, over which citizens had a right of way. They alleged that Respondent No. 5 purchased the plot, obtained conversion for commercial use under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and commenced construction that encroached on a public road via G.I. fencing and raised the footpath height, making it difficult for elderly citizens. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to modify licence conditions to bring the projection to ground level. The court heard arguments from counsel for both sides. The court noted that the petitioners failed to establish any public right of way over the property and that the authorities had not found any breach of licence conditions. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the challenge was without merit.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Right of Way - Development Permission - Petitioners challenged development permissions and construction licence alleging encroachment on public right of way - Court found no evidence of public right of way and no breach of licence conditions - Held that the petition was without merit and dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the development permission and construction licence granted to Respondent No. 5 are illegal and in breach of conditions, and whether the construction encroaches upon public right of way.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Right of Way
- Development Permission
- Encroachment
- Town and Country Planning Act
- Section 44
Case Details
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2012
Mr. Ryan Menezes for Petitioners; Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. Kaif Noorani for Respondent nos. 1 and 4; Mr. H. D. Naik for Respondent no. 2; Mr. S. D. Padiyar for Respondent no. 3; Mr. Nitin Sardessai and Mr. Deep Shirodkar for Respondent nos. 5 and 6
Village Group of Goa Rep. By its President Shri John P. Pereira and anr.
The State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging development permissions and construction licence.
Remedy Sought
Writ of mandamus directing authorities to modify licence conditions to bring projection to ground level.
Filing Reason
Alleged encroachment on public road and obstruction of public right of way due to construction.
Issues
Whether the development permissions and construction licence were granted in violation of law?
Whether the construction encroaches upon public right of way?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the construction encroached on public road and footpath, and that the authorities failed to take action against breaches.
Respondents argued that there was no breach of licence conditions and no public right of way existed.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioners failed to establish any public right of way over the property and no breach of licence conditions was found. The challenge to the development permissions and construction licence was without merit.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners, who claim to have filed the present Petition in a larger public interest, challenge the development permission dated 09.09.2010 and subsequent development permission dated 22.06.2012 and the construction licence dated 29.06.2012 granted by the Respondent no. 2 in favour of Respondent no. 5.
Procedural History
The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. After hearing arguments, the court dismissed the petition on 19th November 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Town and Country Planning Act: Section 44
