Case Note & Summary
The matter involved two Public Interest Litigation writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, alleging large‑scale illegal encroachment upon Comunidade land in Serula village. The petitioners, claiming to be social activists and daily‑wage workers, contended that Respondent No. 4 (a serving State Minister) and Respondent No. 5, in collusion with the Comunidade’s managing committee and State authorities, had usurped valuable land in survey nos. 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Code of Comunidades. The core factual allegations were that Respondent No. 4 had initially obtained a small shed through a General Body resolution at an annual rent of Rs. 75 and later expanded the encroachment to 599 sq. mts. while civil proceedings were pending. Respondent No. 5 allegedly constructed an illegal structure measuring 10.20 mts × 11.20 mts. Both respondents then sought regularization of their encroachments. It was further alleged that, at the same time, they were being rehabilitated in a new building project on survey no. 379/1, financed by the same respondents, with shops ‘J’ and ‘K’ allotted to them without following the auction requirement under Article 334‑A of the Code. The petitioners asserted that no policy or guidelines for regularization of Comunidade encroachments existed, no amendment to Article 380 had been made, and the entire process was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The legal issues raised were whether the regularization without a policy and in violation of the Code was unconstitutional, whether the letters dated 14.9.2012 and 15.10.2012 regularising the encroachments and handing over plots were illegal, whether the State was obliged to frame a regularization policy, and whether the construction and allotment of shops/flats in survey no. 379/1 had followed due process under Articles 334‑A and other provisions. At the hearing, the Court issued Rule, waived service by consent, and, at the request of counsel, took up both petitions together for final disposal. After hearing all parties, the Court examined the averments and the prayers. The judgment as provided does not contain the final operative order or detailed reasoning beyond the narration of facts and the framing of reliefs; it records only that the petitions were heard together and Rule was issued. The ultimate decision and ratio are therefore not excerpted.
Headnote
A) Comunidade Law – Regularization of Encroachments – Code of Comunidades, Articles 342, 326, 329, 334, 334‑A, 380 – Petitioners contended that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had illegally encroached upon Comunidade land in survey numbers 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 of Serula without following the mandatory procedure under the Code. The Court issued Rule and heard the parties on the prayer for a declaratory writ that the application for regularization filed by Respondent No. 4 in the absence of a policy/guidelines and without amending Article 380 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Code (Paras 1–5). B) Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 226 – The petitioners argued that the regularization of encroachments and the allotment of shops for rehabilitation without following Article 334‑A is arbitrary and violates the right to equality and the right to life. The Court considered the challenge to the letters dated 14.9.2012 and 15.10.2012 and directed that the petitions be taken up for final disposal (Paras 1–5). C) Administrative Law – Mandatory Policy/Guidelines – Code of Comunidades, Article 380 – The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to frame a policy/guidelines for regularization of illegal encroachments on Comunidade land and, if necessary, amend Article 380. The Court heard the submission and issued Rule on this prayer (Paras 1–5). D) Comunidade Law – Auction Requirements – Code of Comunidades, Article 334‑A – The relief sought that the Administrator of Comunidades seize and attach flats, offices, and shops in survey no. 379/1 because the provisions of Article 334‑A regarding allotment/auction were not followed was urged before the Court; Rule was issued and the matter was set down for final hearing (Paras 1–5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the regularization of encroachments on Comunidade land without framing proper guidelines and in violation of the Code of Comunidades is unconstitutional; whether the letters dated 14.9.2012 and 15.10.2012 regularising encroachments and allotting shops for rehabilitation are illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; whether the State Government is obliged to frame a policy for regularization and rehabilitation of encroachers on Comunidade land.
Final Decision
Rule issued. Both petitions heard together with the consent of the parties. Final order and detailed reasons not excerpted in the provided text.
Law Points
- Regularization of encroachments on Comunidade land without a policy or amendment to Article 380 of the Code of Comunidades violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- Allotment of flats and shops for rehabilitation must follow the auction procedure under Article 334-A of the Code of Comunidades
- Letters dated 14.9.2012 and 15.10.2012 regularising encroachments are unconstitutional and violative of Code of Comunidades
