Netra Sandeep Mahale Vs the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

1 902 WP 152 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.152 OF 2021

NETRA SANDEEP MAHALE

¶4

... Petitioner.

¶5

VS

¶6

THE PRESIDENT,
SHRI SHANTADURGA DEVASTHAN,
MARCELA AND ANR.

¶7

... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Vibhav Rajiv Amonkar, Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for the
Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Yogesh Nadkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
No.2.

¶11

Coram:M.S. SONAK, J.
Date: 7th July, 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel under Legal Aid
Scheme who appears on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Nadkarni, learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar, Additional
Government Advocate for Respondent No.2-Panchayat.

¶14

2.The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 28.06.2016,
04.12.2018 and 30.07.2019 made by the authorities under the provisions
of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act) ordering demolition of the
structure put up by the Petitioner in the property of Respondent No.1 on
the ground that the same was illegal and unauthorized.

¶15

2 902 WP 152 of 2021

¶16

3.Mr. Amonkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the structure was in fact an outhouse attached to House No.110 in the
limits of Respondent No.2 Panchayat. He submitted that both the main
house as well as the outhouse were existing since last 50 to 55 years i.e.
much before the coming into force of the said Act. He submits that only
repairs were undertaken to the outhouse, in which the Petitioner has been
residing along with her family. He submits that regularization
applications have already been made and pending consideration of the
same before the appropriate authorities, no demolition could have been
ordered or at least ought to be executed. He further submits that the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside on these grounds.

¶17

4.Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 points
out that House No.110 is at a distance of almost 100 meters away from
the illegal and unauthorized structure put up by the Petitioner. He
submits that there is absolutely no nexus between the new structure now
put up by the Petitioner and House No.110. He submits that this is a
clear attempt to pass off House No.110 as having some nexus with the
illegal and unauthorized structure. He submits that the three authorities,
have concurrently rejected such a plea and there is no perversity to
warrant any interference with the findings of fact recorded by the three
authorities. He, therefore, submits that this petition may be dismissed.

¶18

5.Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Counsel for the Panchayat states that the
Panchayat, is bound by the orders made by the authorities under the
Panchayat Raj Act and will comply with the same, if such orders are
upheld.

¶19

3 902 WP 152 of 2021

¶20

6.This matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the
Respondent No.1 to consider whether some settlement is possible. Mr.
Nadkarni, has however on instructions submitted that this is a case of
illegal and unauthorized construction put up in Devasthan property. He
points out that several other constructions have come up and the
Devasthan Committee is making all efforts to restore the Devasthan
properties to the Devasthan. He submits that any indulgence in a case of
this nature, will, have a cascading effect. Therefore, on behalf of the
Devasthan Committee, inability was expressed to extend any indulgence
to the Petitioner.

¶21

7.Having considered the rival contentions and perused the material
on record, in my opinion, there is no case made out to interfere with the
impugned orders. All the three authorities have concurrently held that
there is no material whatsoever to suggest that this was some existing
structure which was only repaired by the Petitioner. All the three
authorities have also held that there is no nexus between House No.110
and this structure. Even the Petitioner, has not placed any material in
support of her contention that this was merely an outhouse and therefore,
may not have been numbered separately, but that it was also an existing
structure which was merely repaired. The fact findings recorded by the
three authorities suffer from no perversity so as to warrant any
interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶22

8. Besides, this is also not a case where the Petitioner, at the very outset, accepted that some illegal structure had been put up by her and then applied for regularization, assuming that such regularization is

¶23

4 902 WP 152 of 2021

¶24

indeed present in such cases. This is a matter where the Petitioner,
contested the notices. This is a matter where the Panchayat failed to take
action and therefore, the Deputy Director had to step in and make the
demolition order. Thereafter, the Petitioner appealed to the Director and
finally also urged that the two orders be revised by the District Judge at
Ponda.

¶25

9.Mr. Nadkarni pointed out that there is no question of
regularization of such structures particularly in the absence of any consent
from the owner i.e. Respondent No.1. Mr. Nadkarni submitted that this
is not a matter wherein the Devasthan Committee can or is willing to
give such consents.

¶26

10.Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, no
case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. This petition is
therefore required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶27

11.At this stage, this Court inquired from Mr. Amonkar whether the
Petitioner is willing to give an undertaking to this Court that she will
demolish the illegal structure and hand over the site to the Respondent
No.1 on her own, in case, she is to be granted substantial time to
undertake this exercise. This query was posed, having regard to the
submission made by Mr. Amonkar, that the Petitioner has no other place
of residence and even her financial means are quite limited. This query
was posed also having regard to the current Covid-19 pandemic situation.
Mr. Amonkar quite correctly applied for some time to seek instructions
from the Petitioner. The matter was accordingly taken up today.

¶28

902 WP 152 of 2021

¶29

12.Mr. Amonkar, on instructions submits that the Petitioner is willing
to give the necessary undertaking, after she was explained in some detail,
not only the consequences of suffering an adverse order but also, the
consequences of disobedience of an undertaking, if furnished. Mr.
Amonkar has now reported that the Petitioner is willing to give such
undertaking but has made a request that she should be permitted to once
again approach the Respondent No.1 with a plea that her case be
considered sympathetically.

¶30

13.Therefore, though this petition is being dismissed, it is directed
that the demolition order should not be executed upto 01.04.2022,
provided, the Petitioner, within four weeks from today, files an
undertaking before this Court, that, only she and her family members are
presently residing in the suit structure and that she will not transfer,
alienate, part with possession or otherwise create any third party right in
the suit structure and further that on or before 01.04.2022, she will at her
own expense, demolish the structure and restore the site to the
Respondent No.1. The demolition shall be deferred upto 01.04.2022,
only if such undertaking is filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from
today in this Court.

¶31

14.Before filing such undertaking, a copy of the same will have to be
furnished to the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The learned
Counsel for the Respondents will have the liberty to apply to this Court,
in case the undertaking is not in the aforesaid terms, or if there is any
attempt thereof to wriggle out and at the same time avoid the
consequences of the impugned orders.

¶32

6

¶33

902 WP 152 of 2021

¶34

15. If no such undertaking is filed within four weeks from today, then, the Panchayat and other authorities can proceed with the demolition in terms of the impugned orders.

¶35

16. Nothing in this order can obviously come in the way of the Petitioner petitioning the Respondent No.1 i.e. Devasthan Committee from taking a favourable view in the matter.

¶36

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

¶37

18. The efforts put in by Mr. Vibhav Amonkar who appears on behalf of the Petitioner under the Legal Aid Scheme are appreciated.

¶38

 M.S. SONAK, J.

¶39

jfd/-

Netra Sandeep Mahale v. the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netra Sandeep Mahale v. the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

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

Dilip v. Kothari., Vs Maberest Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Concept Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Thr.Its Managing Director, K. P. Kannampilly Vs Spazio Leisure Resort, Thr. Its Prop., Ireneu Aleluia Rodigues and Rosa Hermengilda Rodrigues

Dionisio Sebastiao Cardozo (Dec) Thr. His Lrs Vs Procurador De Communidade De Bambolim and Anr.

Sofia Shabnam., Vs Village Panchayat of Salvador-Do-Mundo, Rep. by Its Secretary.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Parasnath Singh and 6 Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Parasnath Singh and 6 Ors.