Dismissed

Shri Moreshwar N. P. Navelkar v. Ponda Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012WP/263/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of demolition orders issued by the Ponda Municipal Council. The Court noted that serious disputes existed between the petitioner and third-party tenants, mandating resolution through appropriate forums rather than via the council's demolition machinery.

What did the court decide?

Discusses withdrawal of show cause notice and demolition order due to third party rights and pending proceedings.

Shri Moreshwar N. P. Navelkar Vs Ponda Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

wp263-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2012.

¶5

SHRI MORESHWAR N.P. NAVELKAR. ..... PETITIONER.

¶6

V/s. PONDA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS. ..... RESPONDENTS.

¶7

Mr. D. D. Zaveri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶9

Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM :- S.J. VAZIFDAR &

¶11

U.V. BAKRE, JJ. Date : - 8^th October, 2012.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are the Ponda Municipal

¶14

Council, Ponda-Goa and the State of Goa respectively. The petitioner seeks an order quashing the impugned order dated 12^th July, 2011, and

¶15

order dated 22^nd April, 2008 (wrongly mentioned as 24^th February, 2008

¶16

in prayer (b) of the writ petition) and an order against respondent

¶17

2 wp263-12

¶18

No. 1 having allegedly acted in contravention of certain judgments.

¶19

The petitioner, the owner of a plot of land at Ponda, Goa applied for and was granted a licence dated 24^th January, 1981 to construct a building thereon, subject to certain terms and conditions. The licence has not been produced. But one of its conditions, as stated in the petition, requires the petitioner to demolish two old structures existing on the property. The petitioner constructed the building on his property, but, admittedly, did not demolish the said structures as required by the construction licence.

¶20

The petitioner contends that he could not demolish the old structures in view of the claim of a third party who claimed to be the tenant thereon. According to him, the litigation ensued between the third party and himself, which resulted in an order of eviction being executed against the third party and all persons staying with him. It is stated that the third party has, now, been evicted.

¶21

The Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council issued a

¶22

show cause notice dated 24^th October, 2007, directing the petitioner to

¶23

3 wp263-12

¶24

demolish the old structures within seven days, failing which it was stated that the Council would demolish the same at his risk and costs. The Ponda Municipal Council issued a further notice dated 22^nd April, 2008 to the same effect.

¶25

The petitioner, by a letter dated 24^th July, 2009, stated that he had no objection to the Ponda Municipal Council demolishing the said construction at his costs.

¶26

By a letter dated 10^th December, 2009, the Ponda Municipal Council, intimated inter alia that the said third party had requested for copies of the construction licence, site plans and all other relevant documents in respect of the said construction put up by the petitioner. The order refers to the proceedings between the third party and the petitioner. The order, after noting the rival contentions between the petitioner and the third party, observed that it appeared

¶27

that the petitioner was seeking to have the portions occupied by the third party demolished through the Council; the construction had been on the property for over 20 years and that the petitioner had been unable to evict them. The order, therefore, withdrew the said

¶28

4 wp263-12

¶29

demolition order dated 22^nd April, 2008 and show cause notice dated 12^th March, 2009.

¶30

The petitioner challenged the order dated 10^th December, 2009 in Writ Petition No.195/2011. The same was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 27^th June, 2011 of this Court. The order was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to issue a fresh order.

¶31

It is in these circumstances that the impugned order dated 12^th July, 2011 was passed. The order records that the structures occupied by the third parties were not illegal and that the same had been in existence for more than 40 years. It also records that the third party claimed to be the mundkar in respect thereof and in view of the proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar/Rent Controller, the eviction of the third party can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law. In view of the said facts, the order withdrew the show cause notice dated 12^th March, 2009.

¶32

There are serious disputes between the petitioner and the third parties. Despite the same, the petitioner has not impleaded the third parties. Moreover, the impugned action of the respondents is in accordance with the rule of law. The order, in effect, prevents the

¶33

5 wp263-12

¶34

petitioner from taking action against the third parties by the device of the demolition orders. By the impugned order, the respondents have rightly stayed out of the disputes between the petitioner and the third parties. There is no justification for the petitioner seeking to frustrate the proceedings pending between himself and the third parties by taking recourse to the instrumentality of the respondents. The petitioner and the third parties must have their disputes resolved or disposed of in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

¶35

9. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

¶37

U.V. BAKRE, J.

¶38

ssm.

Shri Moreshwar N. P. Navelkar v. Ponda Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Moreshwar N. P. Navelkar v. Ponda Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 2 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

Goa Foundation Vs the North Goa Planning and Development Authority, and 8 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs Goa Cricket Association, Rep. by Shri Prasad Phaterpekar, General Secretary and Anr.

. Vs Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Shri Shailesh Vernekar Vs Canacona Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer