Judgment Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 & 2, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 9/12/2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the disputed structures in the property surveyed under no.266/2 of Mandrem village. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent no.3 on 10/08/1992 issued a permission to the predecessor in title of the petitioner for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435, 435/4, 435/5 and 435/6 in the property surveyed under no.266/2 at Mandrem village. On 5/01/1993, the respondent no.3 issued a reconstruction permission to the said predecessor in title for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435/1 in property surveyed under no.266/2. Thereafter, another permission was granted to said Surendra Desai on 7/08/1993 for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435/3 in the said property. An agreement came to be entered by the petitioner to purchase the said property bearing survey no.266/2 on 28/09/1993 along with the structures therein from Umabai S. Dessai and others through the power of attorney holder said Shri Surendra S. Desai. The hotel of the petitioner came to be registered under the Tourist Act, 1982 on 31/10/1997. A 'No Objection Certificate' also came to be obtained from the respondent no.3 for running bar and restaurant on 21/05/2000 together with an excise permission from the Excise Department on 17/01/2001. On 17/05/2001, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the unlawful construction should not be demolished. Another notice was issued on 17/05/2001 for illegally putting up a compound wall. A Panchayat Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Director of Panchayat challenging the said notice on 19/04/2002 wherein the said appellate Authority directed to maintain status quo by order dated 19/04/2002. The respondent no.2 issued a notice to the respondent no.3 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to take action against the disputed structures of the petitioner. An inspection was carried out on 27/12/2003 by the respondent no.3 in the presence of the petitioner. The respondent no.2 issued a notice to the respondent no.3 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to take action against the disputed structures of the petitioner. An inspection was carried out on 27/12/2003 by the respondent no.3 in the presence of the petitioner. On 10/03/2004, the petitioner received the notice for disconnection dated 4/03/2004 stating inter alia that electrical connection was liable to be disconnected. A reply was filed by the petitioner on 11/03/2004 and thereafter a Writ Petition no.167/2004 was filed before this Court. On 1/04/2004, the order dated 17/02/2004 passed by the respondent no.2 was set aside by this Court and consequently respondent no.2 conducted a hearing when the petitioner filed an affidavit in evidence to the show cause notice dated 17/02/2004. On 20/08/2004 additional documents were filed by the petitioner and thereafter an order was passed on 26/10/2004 directing the demolition of the petitioner's structure. Writ Petition No.516/2004 came to be filed before this Court challenging the said order dated 26/10/2004 which came to be disposed of after setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondent no.2 with the direction to dispose of the case on or before 31/05/2005. Thereafter, on 9/12/2005, after conducting such further inquiry the impugned order was passed directing demolition of the structures of the petitioner. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken strong objection to the manner in which the impugned order was passed by the respondent no.2 essentially contending that the petitioner had produced house tax receipt in respect of the disputed structure together with other material to establish the existence of such structures prior to the relevant date of 1991. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that during the pendency of the earlier petition before this Court the petitioner had also filed an application to produce a copy of the power of attorney issued in favour of the predecessor in title Shri Surendra Desai, which according to him reflects the existence of the structures on the recitals of the said power of attorney. The learned Counsel further points out that the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court and that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by this Court dated 1/04/2005. The learned Counsel further points out that the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court and that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by this Court dated 1/04/2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said Special Leave Petition by order dated 16/10/2006 in petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.8599/2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to renew their request as in the meanwhile the earlier petition came to be disposed of by this Court. As such, the petitioner also seeks to rely upon the said power of attorney in support of their contention that the disputed structures were in existence prior to the year 1991. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 and pointed out that the documents of house tax produced by the petitioner were not considered by the respondent no.2 essentially on the ground that mere production of such house tax receipts would not establish the existence of the structures prior to the year 1991. The learned Counsel has pointed out that such stand on the part of the respondent no.2 is erroneous and contrary to the well settled principles as the only aspect to be considered is whether such disputed structures were in existence prior to 1991. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the power of attorney also discloses that as on the date therein the disputed structures were in existence. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that respondent no.2 has erroneously considered the matter without following the well settled principles of law in deciding such disputes. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 has pointed out that they have no objection in case the petitioner is permitted to rely upon the said power of attorney but however points out that mere production of such power of attorney would by itself not establish the existence of such structure. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Authorities have rightly appreciated the material produced by the petitioner and have come to the conclusion that the disputed structures deserve to be ordered to be demolished. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no evidence has been adduced which could establish the existence of the said structures prior to the year 1991. 6. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no evidence has been adduced which could establish the existence of the said structures prior to the year 1991. 6. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has pointed out that as per the record of the house tax, it reveals that in the year 1982 a structure was registered for house tax with the respondent no.3. 7. Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor has pointed out that the parties have after examining the records from respondent no.3 found that all the documents produced by the petitioner were fabricated. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the survey records which have been promulgated do not even disclose the existence of such structures which falsify the contention of the petitioner that such structures were in existence from the year 1991. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor further pointed out that the power of attorney produced by the petitioner did not support the contention of the petitioner about the existence of the said structures prior to the year 1991. The learned Senior Counsel further disputed the authenticity of the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner and pointed out that the Authorities have rightly appreciated material on record and hence the disputed structures deserve to be demolished. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also gone through the records. The respondent no.2 whilst passing the impugned order has rejected the consideration of the house tax receipt essentially on the ground that merely producing the said receipts would not disclose the legality of the disputed structures. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed while disposing of Misc. Civil Application No.440/2011 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2/2006 by order dated 26/03/2012 has observed at para 5 thus: “5. As far as the Village Panchayat of Anjuna is concerned the chart submitted today identifies about 103 cases of withdrawals. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed while disposing of Misc. Civil Application No.440/2011 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2/2006 by order dated 26/03/2012 has observed at para 5 thus: “5. As far as the Village Panchayat of Anjuna is concerned the chart submitted today identifies about 103 cases of withdrawals. What we find is that if there is a House Tax Certificate issued by a Village Panchayat, even if that certificate is issued after 1991, contemporaneous record maintained by the Village Panchayat in the ordinary and regular course of their affairs indicates that the house is existing prior to 1991, then, on the ground that the certificate is post 1991, the withdrawal need not be set aside. Therefore, the withdrawals on this count need not be reconsidered.” 9. The Division Bench has observed that reliance of such House Tax Receipt if at all produced by the petitioner can be considered by the Authorities. No doubt, the respondent no.2 would have to consider the contention of the intervenor and find out whether such House Tax Receipts in fact pertain to the disputed structures. This exercise would have to be done by respondent no.2 after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It was not open to the respondent no.2 to brush aside such House Tax Receipts on the ground that production of such receipts would not by itself establish the legality of such structures. The legality or otherwise is a different matter altogether. What is relevant is whether the disputed structures were in fact existing prior to 1991. The contention of Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the House Tax Receipts have been fabricated and that such House Tax Receipts are not in respect of the disputed structures would have to be considered by the respondent no.2 after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The effect of the said power of attorney dated 20/12/1989 in the context of the case put up by the petitioner would also have to be considered by the respondent no.2 together with the objections of Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. The effect of the said power of attorney dated 20/12/1989 in the context of the case put up by the petitioner would also have to be considered by the respondent no.2 together with the objections of Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that respondent no.2 has not appreciated the material on record produced by the petitioner in the proper perspective as it was incumbent upon respondent no.2 to first ascertain whether the petitioner has brought any cogent material on record to establish the existence of the said structures prior to 1991. All contentions of the parties in the petition with that regard are left open to be considered by the respondent no.2 after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 10. Considering that the matter is under adjudication for quite a long period of time the respondent no.2 shall dispose of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the order by this Court dated 1/04/2004 in Writ Petition No.516/2004 afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Notice shall also be issued to intervenor to participate in such proceedings. The respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31/03/2012. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 11. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.