Disposed

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar v. Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2021WP/104/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bengaluru HC directed the petitioner Panchayat to enforce a demolition order within four weeks unless stayed, following the dismissal of a regularization application pending against the suit structure.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Village Panchayat of Cortalim to enforce the demolition order of 26th September 2018 within four weeks unless stayed.

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar Vs Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 Ors. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1-WP 104-21.DOC

¶2

Amrut

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.104 OF 2021

¶5

ROHIDAS B. SAKHALKAR … Petitioner Versus VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF …Respondents CORTALIM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND 3 ORS

¶6

Mr. Ravi Anand holding for Mr. B. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. G. Shetye, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. B. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶8

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ DATED: 1^st September 2021

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. The learned Advocate General who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has stated that the application for regularization of structure in question made by Respondent No.4 has already been dismissed.

¶12

3. Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that with the dismissal of application seeking regularization, the

¶13

Page 1 of 2 1st September 2021

¶14

1-WP 104-21.DOC

¶15

relief in terms of prayer clause (A) of the petition has been worked out. He however submits that now that the regularization application has been dismissed, it is only appropriate that the Respondent No.1 be directed to enforce its own demolition order dated 26^th September 2018, within a time bound manner.

¶16

4. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 points out that an appeal against the demolition order is pending. Mr. Anand clarifies that even this appeal has been dismissed for default and what is pending is the application for restoration of appeal.

¶17

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct that the demolition order dated 26^th September 2018 should be enforced by Respondent No.1-Panchayat within four weeks from today unless in the meanwhile the execution of such demolition order is stayed by any authority.

¶18

6. With the aforesaid terms, this petition is disposed of.

¶19

7. All concerned, including in particular the Respondent No.1 – Panchayat to act based on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J M. S. SONAK, J.

¶21

Page 2 of 2 1st September 2021

¶22

Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2021.09.03 10:11:24 +05'30'

¶23

TARI AMRUT NAGESH

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar v. Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar v. Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 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

P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd., through Its Sr. Manager-Legal Neville Mukadam. Vs Shripad Vassudev Lad (Since Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs and 2 Ors.

Andrew D'Cunha Vs the Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Other Backward Class Certificate Govt. of Goa and 5 Ors.

Ferdinando Fernandes., Vs Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors.

Damodar Higher Secondary School, Rep. by Its Man., Arvind Kulkarni and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Akshata R. Korgaonkar Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Vikramsingh Routella., Vs South Goa Planning and Development Authority (Sgpda) Thr. Its Member Secretary and 2 Ors.