Allowed

Village Panchayat of Siolim Sodiem and Anr. v. Smt. Maria Regina Almeida and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2008WP/176/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned order dated 9 May 2002 by the Dy. Director of Panchayat directing the Village Panchayat to issue a final No Objection Certificate for land subdivision and conversion. The court held that an authority without jurisdiction to issue a provisional certificate cannot be compelled to issue a final one as no such certificate has legal sanctity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside; appeal by respondents dismissed; revision application dismissed; rule made absolute.

Village Panchayat of Siolim Sodiem and Anr. Vs Smt. Maria… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.176 OF 2002

¶4

1.	Village Panchayat, Siolim Sodiem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa, through its Secretary having his office at Panchayat Office, Siolim Sodiem, Bardez, Goa.
2.	Shri Francis Fernandes, of major age, Sarpanch of V.P. Siolim, Bardez, Goa.	...... Petitioners.
	Versus
1.	Smt.Maria Regina Almeida
2.	Smt. Grace Almeida, both through their Constituted Power of Attorney Mrs. Maria Rita Rodrigues, r/o. H.No.279, Maddel, Pequeno, Margaon, Salcete, Goa.
3.	Shri Yeshwant Anand Dhargalkar,
4.	Smt. Yamini Alias Baby Yeshwant Dhargalkar, both of majorage, business, r/o. H.No.76, Igrejawado, Marna, Siolim, Bardez, Goa.
5.	Block Development Officer, Government of Goa, having its office at Mapusa, Bardez,Goa.
6.	The Dy. Director of Panchayats, Government of Goa, having office at 3^rdfloor, Junta House, 18^thJune Rd., Panaji, Goa. .....	Respondents.

¶5

¶6

Mr.Nition Sardessai,Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Ms W. Coutinho, Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

¶8

Coram :- R.M.S.KHANDEPARKA,J. Date : - 18^th March, 2008.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

Heard the Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 though served. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 9^th May, 2002 passed by the respondent No.6. By the impugned order, the respondent No.6 had directed the petitioner to issue final N.O.C. in relation to the Sub-Divisional property of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶11

It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of knowing well that under the provisions of law, it is for the Town and Planning Department to issue necessary N.O.C. for Sub-Division and it is for the Collector to issue necessary Sanad for the land conversion in terms of the provisions of law in force in the State of Goa, the respondent No.6 by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to issue final N.O.C. in relation to the Sub-Division of the property as well as conversion of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 merely because the petitioner by mistake had earlier issued provisional N.O.C. in that regard.

¶12

¶13

On hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and that of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and on perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the respondent No.6 while disposing of the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein had held that though the Panchayat has no authority to issue such N.O.C. Yet the Panchayat had either legally or illegally issued provisional N.O.C. and that therefore it should issue final N.O.C. also.

¶14

It is settled law that merely because the authority has issued a provisional certificate without any jurisdiction to issue such certificate, no authority can insist for issuance of the final certificate by such authority. Any certificate issued by the authority without jurisdiction can have no legal sanctity and being so, merely because the authority once committed illegality, higher authority cannot compel such authority to commit same illegality again. It is surprising that the officer occupying the post of Deputy Director of Panchayat does not know this basic and elementary principles of law.

¶15

The impugned order being absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of law cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and appeal which was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before the respondent No.6, is dismissed. The revision application stands dismissed as also the order passed in that regard by the

¶16

¶17

respondent No.5. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

¶18

R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.

¶19

SMA

Village Panchayat of Siolim Sodiem and Anr. v. Smt. Maria Regina Almeida and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Village Panchayat of Siolim Sodiem and Anr. v. Smt. Maria Regina Almeida and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trade Wings Ltd. and 2 Ors., Vs Tulip Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Mr Lalmand Nabhik Chaudhary Presently Lodged in Central Jail Aguada Vs State through Mapusa Police Station

Shri. Avinash Sonawane Vs Smt. Jessline Britto and 6 Ors.

Shri Albino J.a.Faleiro Vs Adminstrative Tribunal for Goa,Daman and Diu and Ors.

Shri Jeronimo Coutinho Vs Village Panchayat of Candolim

Mr. Anthony De Costa and Anr. Vs Director,Directorate of Panchayat and Ors.