Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Narayan Parsekar, owned a property at Mandrem, Pernem, Goa with a residential house and hospital. He filed a complaint before the Village Panchayat, Mandrem, alleging that respondents no.1 & 2 were illegally extending their house beyond the original plinth, damaging his compound wall, and constructing without maintaining proper setback. The complaint was filed under Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1964. As the Panchayat did not decide within the stipulated period, the Deputy Director of Panchayats assumed jurisdiction. The Deputy Director, by order dated 1 February 2006, dismissed the complaint, holding that the construction was not a new house but a reconstruction of an old house for which a valid licence was granted on 15 January 1996. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Director of Panchayats, who dismissed the appeal on 23 January 2012. The petitioner then filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 201B of the Act before the District Judge, Mapusa, which was dismissed on 7 February 2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the Deputy Director, Additional Director, and District Judge were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The court held that the construction was a reconstruction with valid permission, and the petitioner's allegations of unauthorized extension were not substantiated. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Raj - Unauthorized Construction - Section 66, Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 - Complaint regarding illegal extension of house - Deputy Director held construction was reconstruction of old house with valid licence granted on 15 January 1996 - Complaint dismissed - Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction (Paras 2-6).
B) Panchayat Raj - Revision - Section 201B, Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 - Civil Revision Application against order of Additional Director of Panchayats - District Judge dismissed revision upholding orders of Deputy Director and Additional Director - Held that no error of law or jurisdiction found to warrant interference (Paras 2, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Additional Director of Panchayats, and District Judge that the construction by respondents no.1 & 2 was a valid reconstruction with proper permission, and not an unauthorized extension, warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the rule, and made no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings that the construction was a valid reconstruction with permission.
Law Points
- Section 66 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1964
- Section 201B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings
- Requirement of proper setback in construction
- Validity of reconstruction licence
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 206
WRIT PETITION NO. 587 OF 2014
Mr. Valmiki Menezes for Petitioner, Mr. Sandesh D. Padiyar for Respondents No.1 & 2
Mrs. Umavati Mahadev Hadfadkar, Mr. Gurudas M. Hadfadkar, Sarpanch/Secretary, The Village Panchayat of Mandrem
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of Deputy Director of Panchayats, Additional Director of Panchayats, and District Judge dismissing complaint regarding alleged unauthorized construction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 7 February 2014 (District Judge), 23 January 2012 (Additional Director of Panchayats), and 1 February 2006 (Deputy Director of Panchayats) and direction to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondents no.1 & 2 were illegally extending their house beyond original plinth, damaging his compound wall, and constructing without maintaining proper setback.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissed complaint on 1 February 2006 holding construction was reconstruction with valid licence. Additional Director of Panchayats dismissed appeal on 23 January 2012. District Judge dismissed Civil Revision Application on 7 February 2014.
Issues
Whether the construction by respondents no.1 & 2 was an unauthorized extension or a valid reconstruction with permission.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Deputy Director, Additional Director, and District Judge suffer from any error of law or perversity warranting interference under Article 226.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the construction was illegal, without proper setback, and damaging his compound wall.
Respondents no.1 & 2 contended that the construction was a reconstruction of an old house with valid licence granted on 15 January 1996.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by statutory authorities based on evidence, that the construction was a reconstruction with valid licence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless there is perversity or error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The Deputy Director held that the permission was duly granted to the respondents no.1 & 2 to reconstruct the building on 15 January 1996.
The Deputy Director held that the house was in existing for long time it was reconstructed by securing valid licence, and therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner could not be entertained.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed complaint under Section 66 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 before Village Panchayat, Mandrem. Panchayat did not decide within stipulated period. Deputy Director of Panchayats assumed jurisdiction and dismissed complaint on 1 February 2006. Petitioner appealed to Additional Director of Panchayats, who dismissed appeal on 23 January 2012. Petitioner filed Civil Revision Application under Section 201B before District Judge, Mapusa, who dismissed it on 7 February 2014. Petitioner then filed writ petition under Article 226 before High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1964: 66, 201B
