Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, in Kapil Madhukar Betgiri v. Secretary for Urban Development, Government of Goa & Ors., Writ Petition No. 41 of 2026, decided on 23 January 2026, considered the legality of the revisional authority’s decision to set aside the demolition order passed by the Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, in respect of Shridhar Building, Vasco-da-Gama, which was found to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition.
The Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act is limited and cannot be exercised merely because the revisional authority takes a different view from that of the original authority. Interference with an order passed under Section 190 would be justified only where illegality, material irregularity or procedural infirmity is demonstrated. The technical reports, including the fresh report obtained from Goa College of Engineering during the proceedings, established that the building posed a serious threat to the safety of its occupants and the public. The Court found that the contrary opinion relied upon by the occupants was not supported by adequate independent technical evidence to displace the findings regarding the building’s dangerous condition.
Emphasising that protection of human life and public safety must receive paramount consideration, the Court held that disputes concerning ownership, tenancy or occupation could not obstruct the municipal authority from taking necessary action against a dangerous structure. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the revisional orders dated 23.04.2025, upheld the validity of the Chief Officer’s order dated 18.01.2024, and directed the occupants to vacate the building within one week. The Municipal Council was directed to cordon off and demolish the building within eight weeks after it was vacated, without affecting the independent rights claimed by the occupants or pending litigation.***********************
Headnote
Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 – Sections 190 and 303 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Demolition of dilapidated and dangerous building – Revisional jurisdiction – Scope and limitations – The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Goa, setting aside the Chief Officer's demolition order concerning Shridhar Building at Vasco-da-Gama and remanding the matter for fresh inspection. The Chief Officer had directed demolition under Section 190 of the Act on the basis of structural assessment reports indicating that the building was in a ruinous condition and posed danger to human life and property. The Revisional Authority interfered with the demolition order primarily on account of conflicting opinions regarding the possibility of repairs and restoration. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court appointed Goa Engineering College to conduct a fresh structural inspection and specialised technical tests. The report concluded that the building had suffered extensive and irreversible structural damage, had lost its structural integrity and was unsafe for occupation, recommending immediate evacuation and demolition. Held, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and can be exercised only upon satisfaction that the impugned order suffers from illegality or such procedural irregularity as would vitiate the order. Mere existence of a contrary structural opinion, particularly one not supported by independent technical tests, cannot justify interference with a demolition order passed under Section 190. The Revisional Authority cannot substitute its own assessment on technical matters concerning structural safety. The primary consideration in proceedings concerning ruinous buildings is protection of human life and public safety. The pending disputes concerning ownership or tenancy rights do not prevent municipal authorities from exercising statutory powers to remove dangerous structures. The impugned revisional orders were quashed and set aside. The occupants were directed to vacate the building within one week, and the Chief Officer was directed to demolish it within eight weeks after the premises became vacant. The demolition would not affect the rights claimed by the occupants or pending litigation between the parties.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Goa, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, setting aside the demolition order passed by the Chief Officer under Section 190 of the said Act, were legally sustainable?
Final Decision
he Bombay High Court quashed the revisional orders, upheld the demolition order under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, and directed the occupants to vacate the building within one week, followed by its demolition within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers supervisory jurisdiction on High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals
- Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act
- 1968 empowers municipal authorities to order demolition of buildings in ruinous or dangerous conditions
- The principle of natural justice requires fair hearing and consideration of evidence in administrative decisions
- The doctrine of stare decisis applies to uphold previous unchallenged orders
- The court's power under Article 227 is discretionary and exercised to correct jurisdictional errors or manifest injustices
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 102
Writ Petition No. 41 of 2026
Mr. S. S. Kantak, Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Ms. Neha Kholkar, Saicha Dessai, Gaurang Kerkar, Parajli Tari, Swizel Falcao, Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Mr. Ravi Anand, Mr. Shivan Dessai, Ms. Riya Amonkar, Mr. Suresh Babu, Ms. Seeja K. S., Mr. Siddharth Naik, Mr. Mahadev Harmalkar
Secretary for Urban Development, Government of Goa, Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, Damodar Tanavade, Arnaldo Basiliodo Rego, Sandip Shetye, Maria Augusta D’souza, Ashok Mahadev Shetye, Deelip S. Lotlikar, Bharat Kavlekar, Mrs. Vandana Pandurang Kakodkar, Mr. Karnati Ugandharro, Mr. Rajesh Redkar, Mrs. Filomena Fernandes ED’Costa, Mr. Fayaz Mohammed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
The present litigation is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging twelve common orders dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Goa, in revision proceedings. By the impugned orders, the Secretary set aside the demolition order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, concerning Shridhar Building, Vasco-da-Gama, which was declared to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking: - Quashing and setting aside of the twelve common orders dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Secretary, Urban Development. - Restoration and enforcement of the demolition order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Chief Officer under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968.
Filing Reason
The petition was filed because the Secretary, Urban Development, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act, had set aside the Chief Officer's demolition order and remanded the matter for a fresh site inspection and reconsideration.
The petitioner contended that the Secretary had exceeded the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the demolition order without identifying any illegality or procedural irregularity. It was further contended that repeated inspections and reconsideration would unnecessarily delay urgent action against a building posing a serious threat to human life and public safety.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition Nos. 1611/2023(F), 1610/2023(F), 1612/2023(F), 1465/2023(F), 1461/2023(F), 1462/2023(F) and 1464/2023(F): By order dated 03.01.2024, the High Court set aside the second demolition order because the concerned occupants had not been personally served with the earlier notice. The Chief Officer was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing them.
Writ Petition No. 923/2024: By order dated 18.06.2024, the High Court held that the Director of Municipal Administration had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a demolition order passed under Section 190, as no such appeal was provided under the Act.
Issues
Whether the Secretary, Urban Development, could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, to set aside a demolition order passed under Section 190 without establishing illegality or procedural irregularity?
2. Whether conflicting structural assessment reports, unsupported by adequate technical testing, justified interference with the Chief Officer's demolition order?
3. Whether the revisional authority could substitute its own assessment regarding the structural safety of a building in the absence of independent technical evidence?
4. Whether disputes concerning tenancy, ownership and occupation of the premises could obstruct the municipal authority from exercising its statutory powers under Section 190?
5. Whether the safety of occupants and the general public must prevail over the claims for repair, restoration or continued occupation of a structurally dangerous building?
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that:
1. The Secretary, Urban Development, had exceeded the limited revisional powers conferred under Section 303 of the Act by setting aside the demolition order without identifying any illegality or procedural irregularity.
2. The revisional authority had failed to properly consider the GEC report dated 06.10.2017 and the Mormugao Municipal Council Technical Section report dated 06.06.2023, both of which indicated that the building was in a ruinous condition and required demolition.
3. The Chief Officer had considered the available technical reports, including the report submitted by Home Concepts, before passing the demolition order dated 18.01.2024.
4. The remand for another inspection and stability report was unjustified and would defeat the object of Section 190, which empowers the Chief Officer to take prompt preventive action against dangerous buildings.
5. The petitioner relied upon the judgments mentioned above in support of the need for prompt municipal action and the limited scope of interference with demolition measures concerning dangerous structures. Pasted text(20261103-125702).txt
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents
The respondents opposing demolition advanced the following submissions:
1. The respondents contended that although the GEC report of 2017 indicated structural failure, the building continued to stand and the report of Home Concepts suggested that its life could be extended by approximately twenty years through repairs and retrofitting.
2. It was argued that the conflicting technical opinions justified the revisional authority's decision to remand the matter for a fresh inspection by an independent expert agency.
3. The respondents alleged that Section 190 was being misused by the petitioner to evict protected tenants without following the due process prescribed under the Rent Control Act.
4. They contended that there were several disputes and litigations between the petitioner and the occupants concerning their tenancy and occupation of the premises.
5. Respondents Nos. 10 and 11 contended that they had filed civil suits claiming ownership of their respective premises by adverse possession and alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the pendency of those proceedings.
6. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to maintain the building and that the Chief Officer ought to have considered repair and restoration before directing demolition.
7. The respondents also relied upon a report from Silentica Constructions, which suggested that the building could be repaired and stabilised. Respondent Nos. 12 to 14 adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 9. Pasted text(20261103-125702).txt
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional jurisdiction of the Government under Section 303 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and can be exercised to interfere with an order only where illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference is established. A revisional authority cannot set aside a demolition order passed under Section 190 merely because it prefers a different view regarding the structural condition of the building, particularly when the competent authority has considered the available technical reports and followed the prescribed procedure.
Where credible technical material establishes that a building is in a ruinous and imminently dangerous condition, the municipal authority is duty-bound to take prompt action to protect human life and public safety. Disputes concerning tenancy, ownership or occupation cannot obstruct the exercise of statutory powers for removal of a dangerous structure.
Judgment Excerpts
The following extracts capture the principal findings of the Court:
Paragraph 19 – Scope of revisional jurisdiction
“The scope of revision is therefore much narrower than that of an Appeal”
Paragraph 22 – Purpose of Section 190
“The intent of the legislature, by not providing an Appeal in such emergent situation, was obviously to curtail the time limit and scope of challenge”
Paragraph 24 – Technical assessment
The Court observed that it was not within the jurisdiction of the revisional authority or the Court to express its own opinion on technical matters concerning the present safety of the building.
Paragraph 38 – Interference with demolition order
“There was therefore no cause for exercise of revisional jurisdiction”
Paragraph 39 – Final directions
The Court directed that the occupants vacate Shridhar Building within one week and that, after the building was vacated and cordoned off, the Chief Officer ensure its demolition within eight weeks.
Procedural History
1. 29.04.2016 and 11.09.2017: The erstwhile owner, M/s Anand Bose, submitted applications under Section 190 seeking action against the building on the ground that it was in a ruinous condition.
2. 06.10.2017: Goa College of Engineering (GEC) submitted a structural report recommending that the building be vacated and demolished.
3. 16.05.2019: The Chief Officer passed the first demolition order under Section 190. The order was not challenged at the relevant time.
4. 06.06.2023: The Technical Section of Mormugao Municipal Council prepared another report declaring the building to be in a ruinous condition and recommending complete evacuation.
5. 07.06.2023: The Chief Officer passed the second demolition order.
6. 03.01.2024: In Writ Petition Nos. 1611/2023(F), 1610/2023(F), 1612/2023(F), 1465/2023(F), 1461/2023(F), 1462/2023(F) and 1464/2023(F), the High Court quashed the second demolition order on the ground that the concerned respondents had not been personally served with the earlier notice dated 17.01.2018. The Chief Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh in respect of those parties.
7. 18.01.2024: After hearing the concerned parties and considering the available technical reports, the Chief Officer passed the third demolition order under Section 190.
8. February 2024: Respondents challenged the demolition order before the Director of Municipal Administration and the Secretary, Urban Development, and obtained interim protection against demolition.
9. 18.06.2024: In Writ Petition No. 923/2024, the High Court quashed the order of the Director of Municipal Administration, holding that no appeal was provided against an order passed under Section 190 of the Act.
10. 23.04.2025: The Secretary, Urban Development, passed twelve common orders setting aside the demolition order dated 18.01.2024 and remanding the matter to the Chief Officer for fresh inspection and reconsideration.
11. 23.12.2025: During the present proceedings, the High Court appointed Goa College of Engineering to conduct a fresh structural inspection and undertake specified technical tests.
12. 09.01.2026: GEC submitted its fresh report, concluding that the building was structurally unsafe and strongly recommending immediate evacuation and demolition.
13. 23.01.2026: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the revisional orders and issued directions for evacuation and demolition of the building.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Goa Municipalities Act, 1968: Section 190, Section 303, Chapter XXII, Section 291, Section 292, Section 293, Section 295, Section 297, Section 13 Sub Section 184
- Maharashtra Municipal Council Act: Section 354, Section 353B, Section 354(5), Section 264
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 14
