Dismissed

Rudraji Malu Naik and Anr., v. the State Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2019WP/202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus to demolish an illegal shed. Upon finding that the demolition order had been set aside by the Revisional Authority pending further appeals, the Court dismissed the petition but directed the authorities to execute the demolition order within six weeks if it is subsequently revived.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with direction to execute demolition order within six weeks if subsequently revived.

Rudraji Malu Naik and Anr., Vs the State Thr. Chief… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

mukund

¶2

 1 wp- 202/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2018

¶5

Rudraji Malu Naik and another…Petitioners
 Versus

¶6

The State of Goa & 4 Ors.….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Somnath B.Karpe, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms.Neha Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶9

Mr. Gaurish N. Agni with Mr. Eeshan Usapkar, Advocates for
respondent no.5.

¶10

Coram : M.S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶11

Date : 22 January 2019.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 Heard Mr. Karpe, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.

¶14

Neha Kholkar, leaned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Agni, learned counsel for
respondent no.5.

¶15

2. The main relief in this petition is to issue Writ of
Mandamus directing respondent nos.1 to 4 to act in accordance with

¶16

mukund 2 wp- 202/2018

¶17

law and to carry out demolition of illegal shed constructed in the
property bearing no.486/1 by the respondent no.5.

¶18

3. It was the case of the petitioners that Panchayat had
already issued a demolition order dated 27.11.2017 but the same was
not being executed. During the pendency of the present petition,
respondent no.5 instituted Panchayat Appeal No.110/2017 before the
Additional Director of Panchayats under Section 201-B of Goa
Panchayat Raj Act, in order to question of demolition order dated
27.11.2017. By order dated 30.5.2018, the Additional Director of
Panchayats dismissed this appeal.

¶19

4. Respondent no.5 thereupon instituted Civil Revision
Application No.43/2018 before the Revisional Authority. By
judgment and order dated 28.12.2018, the Revisional Authority has
set aside the order dated 30.5.2018 made by the Additional Director
of Panchayats. This means that as on date, there is no demolition
order in existence as against the suit structure.

¶20

5. Mr. Karpe, learned counsel for the petitioners states that
the petitioners are in process of the challenging the judgment and
order dated 28.12.2018. He states that this petition may be kept

¶21

mukund 3 wp- 202/2018

¶22

pending because otherwise, it is unlikely that any action will be taken
against the illegal construction put up by respondent no.5. Mr. Agni,
learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that in view of the
judgment and order dated 28.12.2018, it cannot be said that
respondent no.5 has put any illegal construction.

¶23

6. Taking into consideration that the judgment and order
dated 28.12.2018, at least for the present, stands, there is no point in
keeping this petition pending. However, it is made clear that if
ultimately, the demolition order dated 27.11.2017 made by Panchayat
revives then, Panchayat as well all concerned parties will not delay in
execution of the same. In fact, such demolition order, if, the same
revives, will be executed within a period of six weeks from the date of
such revival. It is further made clear that this direction is ultimately
without prejudice to the rights of respondent no.5 in this matter.

¶24

7. This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M.S.Sonak, J.

Rudraji Malu Naik and Anr., v. the State Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudraji Malu Naik and Anr., v. the State Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Sunil Vitthal Patil., Vs Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Tom Menino Monteiro, by His Attorney, Waman K. Nayak., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Rajeninata Alias Rajaninath Shirodkar and Anr., Vs Kamakshi Saunsthan Shiroda and 3 Ors.

Pravin S. P. Usgaonkar and 2 Ors., Vs Comunidade of Usgao, Thr. Its Secretary/Attorney and 3 Ors.

Ryan Paul Fernandes, Presently at Central Jail Colvale., Vs the Inspector General of Prisons, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti, Presently Lodged in Central Jail Colvale., Vs State Thr. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco and Anr.