Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Panchayat Resolution and Demolition Notice in Property Dispute — Petitioners Failed to Establish Title or Possession Over Disputed Land. The court held that disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 43
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, a group of individuals claiming to be owners and in possession of certain properties in Nuvem, Salcette, Goa, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a resolution passed by the Village Panchayat of Nuvem and a subsequent demolition notice issued by the Panchayat. The petitioners alleged that the Panchayat had passed the resolution without giving them an opportunity of hearing and that the demolition notice was illegal. The respondent No.1, Maria De Sa, claimed ownership of the property and had complained to the Panchayat about unauthorized construction by the petitioners. The Panchayat issued a show cause notice to the petitioners, who submitted a reply. Thereafter, the Panchayat passed a resolution directing demolition of the alleged unauthorized structure. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioners had been given an opportunity of hearing as they had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The court also noted that the matter involved serious disputed questions of title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court held that the petitioners must approach the civil court for determination of title. Additionally, the court observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which they did not avail. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Panchayat resolution and demolition notice.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Title - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a Panchayat resolution and demolition notice as the matter involved serious disputed questions of title and possession over the property, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court held that the petitioners must approach the civil court for determination of title. (Paras 8-10)

B) Panchayat Law - Resolution - Compliance with Natural Justice - Section 178 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The Panchayat passed a resolution directing demolition of alleged unauthorized construction. The court noted that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing before the resolution was passed, as they had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The resolution was not in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 5-7)

C) Panchayat Law - Demolition Notice - Validity - Section 179 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The demolition notice was issued after the Panchayat resolution and after considering the petitioners' reply. The court found no procedural irregularity in the issuance of the notice. (Paras 5-7)

D) Panchayat Law - Alternative Remedy - Appeal - Section 180 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The court observed that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Act against the Panchayat's order, which they did not avail. The writ petition was dismissed on this ground as well. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for challenging a Panchayat resolution and demolition notice when there are disputed questions of title and possession, and whether the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish their title and possession over the disputed property, and that the Panchayat had followed the procedure under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The court also noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Act.

Law Points

  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
  • 1950 is not appropriate for adjudication of disputed questions of title
  • Panchayat resolution under Section 178 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1994 requires compliance with principles of natural justice
  • Demolition notice under Section 179 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1994 must be preceded by proper show cause notice and opportunity of hearing
  • Remedy of appeal under Section 180 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1994 is available against orders of Panchayat.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 135

WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2013

0000-00-00

Mrs. Conceicao Da Costa and others

Mrs Maria De Sa and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging Panchayat resolution and demolition notice.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of Panchayat resolution dated 18.12.2012 and demolition notice dated 21.12.2012.

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that the Panchayat passed the resolution and issued demolition notice without giving them an opportunity of hearing and that the Panchayat acted illegally.

Issues

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when there are disputed questions of title and possession? Whether the Panchayat resolution and demolition notice were passed in violation of principles of natural justice? Whether the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the Panchayat resolution and demolition notice were passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing and that the Panchayat acted without jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 argued that the petitioners were given a show cause notice and they submitted a reply, thus they were heard. Also, the matter involves disputed title which cannot be decided in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proper remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civil court for determination of title. Additionally, the Panchayat had complied with principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause notice and considering the petitioners' reply before passing the resolution. The petitioners also had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which they did not avail.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing as they had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The matter involves serious disputed questions of title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 180 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the Panchayat resolution dated 18.12.2012 and demolition notice dated 21.12.2012. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
  • Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Sections 178, 179, 180
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Panchayat Resolution and Demolition Notice in Property Dispute — Petitioners Failed to Establish Title or Possession Over Disputed Land. The court held that disputed questions of title ca...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Recalls Non-Bailable Warrant in Contempt Case Due to Contemnor's Presence in Court Premises. Court Stays Execution of Warrant and Lists Matter for Final Hearing.