Disposed

Smt. Victoria Gloria Dias E Raposo and 5 Ors., v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 10 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2014WP/518/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged licenses granted for construction infringing petitioners' proprietary rights. Court noted licenses had lapsed post-filing, rendering merits inapposite. Petition disposed of; interim relief vacated. Merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; rule discharged; interim stands vacated.

Smt. Victoria Gloria Dias E Raposo and 5 Ors., Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp518-06

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 518 OF 2006

¶3

Smt. Victoria Gloria Dias e Raposo, widow of Torcato Raposo, about 65 years old, Indian National, housewife, resident of St. Barbara, St-Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.

¶4

Shri Plinio Jose Manuel Raposo, son of Torcato Raposo, 38 years old, Indian National, service, resident of St. Barbara, St-Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.

¶5

Smt. Conceicao Raposo, widow of Olive Raposo, about 70 years old, Indian National, resident of St. Barbara, St-Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.

¶6

Smt. Lisa Dias e Monteiro, wife of D.A. Monteiro, 51 years old, Indian National, Teacher, resident of St. Barbara, St-Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.

¶7

Shri Bismark Gonsalves, son of Lourenco Gonsalves, 70 years old, married, Engineer, Indian National, resident of H.No.1354, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.

¶8

Shri Alerio Fernandes, son of Shri Honorato Fernandes, 50 years old, Engineer, Indian National, resident of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. ….. PETITIONERS.

¶9

2 wp518-06

¶10

V/s.

¶11

State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Office of the Chief Secretary, Goa Secretariat, Alto-Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

¶12

Chief Town Planner, Office of the Chief Town Planner, Government of Goa, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa.

¶13

Village Panchayat of St. Cruz, Office of the Village Panchayat, St-Cruz, Tiswadi, Goa.

¶14

Shri Visrama Sitarama Porobo Nachinolcar, son of late Sitarama V.P. Nachinolcar, and his wife

¶15

Smt. Parvatibai Visrama Porobo Nachinolcar,

¶16

Shri Shital Sitarama Porobo Nachinolcar, and his wife,

¶17

Smt. Shanta Shital Porobo Nachinolcar,

¶18

Respondents No.4 to 7, all majors, Indian Nationals, landlords and residents of St. Barbara, St. Cruz, Tiswadi-Goa.

¶19

Shri Silvestre D'Souza, son of Diogo D'Souza, major, married and his wife,

¶20

Smt. Apolita D'Souza, both residents

¶21

3 wp518-06

¶22

of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Tiswadi, Goa.

¶23

Director of Panchayats, Office of the Director of Panchayats, Government of Goa, Junta House, Panaji, Goa.

¶24

North Goa Planning & Development Authority, Office of North Goa Planning and Development Authority, Panaji, Goa.

¶25

…... RESPONDENTS.

¶26

Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Parsekar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶27

Mr. E. Afonso, Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 10 and 11.

¶28

Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶29

Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7.

¶30

Ms. A. A. Agni, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 9.

¶31

CORAM :- F.M. REIS & Z.A. HAQ, JJ. Date : - 24^th April, 2014.

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER F.M. REIS, J.)

¶33

Heard Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel

¶34

appearing for the petitioners, Mr. E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 10 and 11, Mr. V. A.

¶35

4 wp518-06

¶36

Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 7 and Ms. A. A. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9.

¶37

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the licences issued by the Statutory Authorities, in respect of a construction which was intended to be put up by the respondents No.8 and 9. It is pointed out by Ms. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9 that a part of the construction had already been completed when the present petition came to be filed and the remaining construction had to be stopped in view of a status quo order passed by this Court.

¶38

During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Ms. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9 has further pointed out that the licences which have been issued by the concerned Village Panchayat and other Statutory Authorities with regard to the disputed construction, have already lapsed as they were valid for a period of three years. Ms. Agni points out that respondent

¶39

5 wp518-06

¶40

No.8 is entitled to file an application/s for renewal of the licences. Ms. Agni further points out that no application for renewal of such licences has been filed before the Authorities by respondent No.8 upto this date. In case such renewal applications are filed, the Authorities would have to examine such applications on its own merits, in accordance with law.

¶41

Considering that the licences have lapsed due to efflux of time, the question of proceeding to ascertain the merits of rival contentions in the above writ petition would not be justified.

¶42

Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that the disputed construction intended to be put up by respondent No.8 directly infringes the proprietory rights of the petitioners to enjoy the property belonging to them and as such, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners are entitled to object to such construction activity. Needless to say, the petitioners are always at liberty to raise their objections with regard to such constructions before the concerned Authorities, in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the

¶43

6 wp518-06

¶44

rival contentions and, as such, all the contentions of both the parties, on merits, are left open.

¶45

At this stage, Ms. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9 states that the construction activities would be carried out by the respondent No.8 only upon receipt of the requisite permissions/licences from the Statutory Authorities. In view of the said statement, interim relief granted earlier, stands vacated.

¶46

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule stands discharged accordingly. No costs.

¶47

Z.A. HAQ, J. F.M. REIS, J.

¶48

ssm.

Smt. Victoria Gloria Dias E Raposo and 5 Ors., v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Victoria Gloria Dias E Raposo and 5 Ors., v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 10 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

Mr. Wilson D'Costa and 10 Ors., Vs the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shri. Ramkrishna Shantaram Mangeshkar Vs State of Goa , through Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Sarvesh Naik and 4 Ors., Vs Sandeep Vazarkar and 6 Ors.

Miss. Komal Singh and Anr., Vs the State of Goa through Chief Secretary

Eremita Vitoria Fernandes (Sin. Dec.) Rep. by Its Brother Luis Jose Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Addl. Collector and Lao. and Anr.

Smt. Prabhat B. Gaunkar, Asst. Graduate Teacher Vs State through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.