Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Vasant Harmalkar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the order dated 18th October 2024 passed by the Minister of Revenue (Appellate Authority) and the order dated 18th January 2023 passed by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bardez, which rejected his application for regularisation of an unauthorised house structure under the Goa Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction Act, 2016. The Petitioner claimed to be in absolute possession of the property situated at Cuchelim, Mapusa, Goa, and relied on Form B documents issued under the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules, 1969, showing his father's possession since 1988, and a Zoning Certificate from the North Goa Planning and Development Authority. The Deputy Collector called for reports from the Inspector of Survey & Land Records and the Forest Department, both of which cleared the structure for regularisation. However, Respondent No. 2, a local resident, objected on the ground that the construction was carried out after the cut-off date of 28th February 2014. The Deputy Collector rejected the application on the ground that the Petitioner failed to produce documents proving his ownership and no objection from the original owner. The Petitioner appealed to the Minister of Revenue, who upheld the rejection. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner also filed a civil suit for declaration of ownership, which was pending. The High Court examined the impugned orders and found that the authorities had considered the material on record and concluded that the Petitioner had not established his ownership. The court noted that the Petitioner's reliance on Form B documents only showed possession, not ownership, and that the Zoning Certificate did not confer title. The court held that the findings of fact were not perverse and that the Petitioner's remedy lay in the civil suit. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction - Ownership Proof - Goa Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction Act, 2016 - The Petitioner sought regularisation of a house structure but failed to produce documents proving ownership or NOC from the original owner. The Deputy Collector and Appellate Authority rejected the application. The High Court held that the findings of fact by the authorities were not perverse and the Petitioner's remedy lies in civil suit for declaration of ownership. (Paras 1-19) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no perversity in the impugned orders. (Paras 20-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders rejecting the Petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised construction on the ground of lack of ownership proof and absence of NOC from the original owner are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Appellate Authority. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation of unauthorised construction
- Ownership proof
- No Objection Certificate
- Perversity of findings
- Scope of writ jurisdiction
