Disposed

Mahendra R. P. Dharwatkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2018WP/839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa issued directions directing the Deputy Director of Panchayats to decide a pending boundary dispute between two Village Panchayats within six months. The court held that the writ petition should be disposed of because deciding the underlying boundary dispute would substantially conclude the petitioner's complaint.

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Director of Panchayats was directed to conclude the boundary dispute within six months; liberty granted to revive the petition if the dispute remains undecided.

Mahendra R. P. Dharwatkar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

 1 wp839-18-16-10-18

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2018

¶4

Mahendra R.P. Dharwatkar.

¶5

.…..Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

State of Goa and others.…... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. Sagar
Dhargalkar, Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶10

Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶11

 Date : 16 October 2018.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The Petitioner has sought the following reliefs :

¶15

“(a) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction under
Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India directing,
commanding, the Deputy Director of Panchayats
(Respondent No.6) to decide the complaint dated
18/09/2017 of the Petitioner and the boundary dispute
bearing no.DDPN/Demarcation/Merces/Tis/1/2013
pending before it, at the earliest and preferably within a
time.

¶16

 2 wp839-18-16-10-18

¶17

(b) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction under
Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India directing,
commanding, Block Development Office (Respondent
No.2) to file report of factual position of boundary of
Village Panchayat of Merces (Respondent No.3) and
Village Panchayat Chimbel (Respondent No.4).”

¶18

3.It is an admitted position that if the dispute referred to in
prayer clause (b) as above is decided, then the prayer clause (a) which
is a complaint of the Petitioner, would also be substantially
concluded. The learned Advocate General states that the dispute of
the boundary between the Village Panchayat of Merces and the
Village Panchayat of Chimbel, which is pending before the State
Government would be decided by the Deputy Director of Panchayats
within a period of six months.

¶19

4. We, accordingly, direct the Deputy Director of
Panchayats to conclude this boundary dispute within a period of six
months. Office bearers of both the Panchayats will co-operate with
the Deputy Director of Panchayats in early disposal of this boundary
dispute.

¶20

5.In view of this statement and the directions, it is not
necessary to keep the Writ Petition pending, which is accordingly

¶21

 3 wp839-18-16-10-18

¶22

disposed of. In case the boundary dispute is not decided within the
period of six months, liberty to the Petitioner to revive the Petition.

¶23

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Mahendra R. P. Dharwatkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra R. P. Dharwatkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 5 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

Vilas Kashinath Parab., Vs State of Goa, through the Secretary (Education) and 2 Ors.

Shivshakti Agali Association Fatorda, Margao Though Its Presient Vaibhav v. Rawool., Vs the South Goa Planning and Development Authority, through Its Member Secretary and 6 Ors.

Delma Rodrigues., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Deepak C. Shetye and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Jagdish Y. Chowgule., Vs Manuel Colaco (Dec) Thr. Lrs. and 2 Ors.

Helen Pinto E Andrade @ Helen Lily Andrade., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.