Judgment C.L. Pangarkar, J. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Panaji, whereby she dismissed the application of the present appellant for temporary injunction. 2. The appellant/plaintiff and the defendants/respondents are the immediate neighbours. The defendants after demolition of their house wanted to make a new construction on their plot. The defendants accordingly applied to the Town and Country Planning Department for the construction of the house. Similarly, they applied to the Village Panchayat for grant of permission to make the construction. The plaintiff feels aggrieved by the grant of such permission to the defendants on the ground that according to the plaintiff, the construction sought to be made by the defendants is in breach of Rule 12 of the Goa, Daman and Diu village Panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were bound to leave set back of 3 mtrs., on plaintiffs side. It is contended that the plan would show that the set back which is left by the defendants is 1.5 mtrs., which according to the plaintiffs is in breach of Goa. Daman and Diu village panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971. 3. The defendants' contention on the other hand is that they obtained permission from all the authorities as contemplated by the provisions in Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008. It is contention of the defendants that all the authorities who are required to give sanction for such construction have given sanction and no objection. In view of this, it is the contention of the defendants that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and there is no reason to restrain the defendants from making this construction. 4. The learned Judge after considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties has held that the construction was not in breach of any provisions of law and therefore, she rejected the application. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before this Court that the Village Panchayat had erred in according permission to the defendants to make the construction in breach of provisions of Rule 12 Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971. He invited my attention to the provisions of Rule 12 Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971. He invited my attention to the provisions of Rule 12 Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971. It is not in dispute that the plot area of the defendants is more than 200 sq. mtrs. The Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulations of Buildings) Rules, 1971 say that where the plot area exceeds 200 sq. mtrs. the owner of the plot is bound to leave a set back of 3 mtrs. 6. The question is however, whether these rules are applicable to the present case. The learned counsel for the respondents states that these rules do not apply to this case in view of the new Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008. The said Act came into force w.e.f. 2.9.2007. The defendants had applied for grant of permission on 10.3.2008, obviously after coming into force of the new Act. It is, therefore, clear that the application had to be considered in view of the provisions of the new Act. Under the new Section 8 of the Act, it is directed that on and from the date of the coming into force of the regulations framed under Section 7, any land development and building construction in the State shall be in accordance with the provisions of such regulations. Thus all the applications filed after coming into force of the new Act need to be considered under the provisions of the new Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the set back required to be kept is 1.5 mtrs. The learned trial Court has considered the provisions of the New Act. She has also considered the no objection certificates which have been obtained by the defendants and held that the construction of the defendants is not required to be made under the old Regulation of 1971, in view of the fact that the construction sought to be made by the defendant is after coming into force of the new Act. The learned Judge has rightly held that the present construction is governed by the new law. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the appeal and is therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.