JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 as also Mr. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, in both the petitions. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the writ petitions, since common question of law is involved. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. By these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14/06/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao, respectively, in Civil Revision Applications No. 25/2011/FTC/II and 26/2011/FTC/II. 5. A notice dated 20/03/2006 was issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, South Goa, Margao, to the petitioner and respondent no. 1, stating that it had received a complaint about illegal construction of pucca house No. 595/A and a cowshed in the property bearing survey no. 1/24 without obtaining permission from the competent authority and that the respondent no. 1 had not taken any action on the complaint as prescribed under sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for short). The Deputy Director therefore assumed powers of Panchayat under Section 66(5) of the Act. Case No. DDPS/Illegal-Const/11/2006 came to be registered. 6. By judgment and order dated 03/08/2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats in the said case No. DDPS/Illegal-Const/11/2006, the complaint of respondent no. 2 (Mrs. Mary D'Silva) insofar as the cowshed is concerned, was dismissed, but allowed insofar as the house is concerned, which house, situated in Survey No.1/24 of Velim village, was ordered to be demolished. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 03/08/2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, in respect of the house, since the same was ordered to be demolished. That was done by the petitioner by filing Panchayat Appeal No. 49/2007. 7. The Additional Director of Panchayats, by judgment and order dated 26/07/2011, dismissed the said Panchayat Appeal No. 49/2007. Hence, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No. 25/2011 before the Adhoc District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao and by the impugned judgment and order dated 14/06/2013, the said Revision Application came to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition no. 488/2013 against the said order. 8. Respondent no. Hence, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No. 25/2011 before the Adhoc District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao and by the impugned judgment and order dated 14/06/2013, the said Revision Application came to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition no. 488/2013 against the said order. 8. Respondent no. 2 had filed Panchayat Appeal No. 45/2007 against the order dated 03/08/2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, since her complaint regarding the cowshed was dismissed. This appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 26/07/2011 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats and the order dated 03/08/2007 dismissing the complaint regarding the cowshed was set aside and the petitioner was directed to demolish the cowshed. The petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No. 26/2011 before the Adhoc District Judge-II, South Goa against the said order dated 26/07/2011. By impugned order dated 14/06/2013, the learned Adhoc District Judge-II dismissed the Revision Application. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 489/2013 against the said order dated 14/06/2013. 9. Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the original complaint dated 05/02/2000 filed by respondent no. 2 was specifically regarding an attempt by the petitioner to construct a cattle shed and in this complaint, it was mentioned that the petitioner is already staying in her property. He, therefore, submitted that the house is admittedly older than the cattle shed. He invited my attention to the panchanama and checklist prepared by the Extension Officer wherein, it is mentioned that the house as well as cowshed is old. He further submitted that if the petitioner already has a house occupied by him, then, he has to be evicted therefrom which will require some civil proceedings. He submitted that almost after two years, by a complaint dated 22/05/2002, respondent no. 2 complained about the house also stating that the same is illegal. He invited my attention to the documents produced by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Panchayats in the form of receipt of house tax, one of which is dated 02/09/1993, electricity bill dated 14/11/1997, ration card of 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 and NOC for water connection dated 01/08/1999 and more particularly, to the permission granted by the Village Panchayat dated 23/04/1999 for repairs of the cowshed. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for declaration of mundkarship before the competent authority. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for declaration of mundkarship before the competent authority. He next submitted that in Writ Petitions No. 528 and 529 of 2012, this Court had observed that the authorities have not considered the documents and whether the said documents were material or relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute in controversy and that the same is a matter which Revisional Court will have to consider while passing the order and impact of such documents in the matter in dispute also will have to be considered by the Revisional Court. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in spite of the said specific direction of this Court, the learned Adhoc District Judge-II has not at all considered the impact of the documents. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. coutinho, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is seeking relief in respect of the structures, which have no permission from the Village Panchayat. He submitted that the checklist and panchanama showing that the structures are old, were prepared in 2005, though the complaint was of the year 2000. He submitted that there was no licence nor conversion sanad for the said constructions. He submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner were all of 1994 and onwards. According to him, there are concurrent findings of the Additional Director of Panchayats and of Adhoc District Judge and the same cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in the present petitions. He therefore urged that the impugned orders may not be interfered with. 11. I have perused the entire material on record and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. Insofar as the cowshed is concerned, in the complaint dated 05/02/2000, the respondent no. 2 did not complain of any illegal cowshed of the petitioner already existing in her property. The complaint was specifically regarding future act by saying that the petitioner is now attempting to construct a cattle shed without her permission and that the petitioner has already constructed pillars of stone and is likely to complete the structure as early as possible. 2 did not complain of any illegal cowshed of the petitioner already existing in her property. The complaint was specifically regarding future act by saying that the petitioner is now attempting to construct a cattle shed without her permission and that the petitioner has already constructed pillars of stone and is likely to complete the structure as early as possible. Therefore, the cause of action in respect of the cowshed was that the petitioner as on 05/02/2005 had constructed some pillars of stone and was attempting to construct a cowshed. Admittedly, previously, permission to repair the cowshed was given vide No.VPV/70/1998-2000 dated 23/04/1999. The Deputy Director of Panchayats, in judgment and order dated 03/08/2007, had observed that in the inspection report of BDO, it is stated that the cowshed is an old structure and Village Panchayat had given permission to repair the existing cowshed after obtaining resolution No. 3(V) in their body meeting dated 11/4/1999, which was not challenged before competent authority. The Deputy Director had thus observed that there is scope to believe that the cowshed was existing for several years and cannot be demolished. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 had miserably failed to establish the cause of action for cowshed which was alleged in her complaint dated 05/02/2005. The Deputy Director had rightly refused to take any action in respect of the cowshed under section 66(5) of the Act. In my considered view, therefore, the Additional Director of Panchayats, in appeal, ought not to have reversed the finding of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, as regards the cowshed, without considering this aspect and the Adhoc District has clearly acted in excess of jurisdiction, in the exercise of revisional powers. 13. In Case No. DDPS/Illegal const/11/2006, the Deputy Director of Panchayats forgot to consider and/or overlooked the fact that by the said complaint dated 05/02/2000, the respondent no. 2 of the petitions before me, had complained that the petitioner has been illegally staying in her property and is now attempting to construct a cattle shed without her permission and that the petitioner has already constructed pillars of stone and is likely to complete the structure as early as possible. This means that the house was already existing prior to construction of cowshed but since when was not disclosed by the respondent no. 2. 14. This means that the house was already existing prior to construction of cowshed but since when was not disclosed by the respondent no. 2. 14. The judgment and order dated 03/08/2007 passed by Deputy Director of Panchayats clearly reveals that the respondent no. 2 of the present petitions had filed a false complaint dated 05/02/2000 to the effect that a new cowshed was being constructed, though the same was existing for the last several years and thus, by her conduct had shown that she cannot be relied upon. 15. Once it was admitted by the respondent no. 2 of the present petitions in the said complaint dated 05/02/2000 that the petitioner has been already staying in her property before construction of the cattle shed, it goes without saying that the said house of the petitioner is older than the cattle shed. The Deputy Director relied upon the inspection report of Block Development Officer regarding the cowshed wherein it is reported that the same is an old structure and on the permission for repairs granted by Village Panchayat in 1999 and held that there is scope for believing that the cowshed was existing for several years. However, merely because the petitioner could not produce the permission issued by the Village Panchayat for construction of the house, the Deputy Director of Panchayats refused to rely upon the inspection report of BDO wherein it is stated that the house is “old house,” though she believed the same inspection report in respect of the old age of the cattle shed. Since the house is admittedly older than the cowshed, the Deputy director ought to have relied upon the inspection report of the Block Development officer wherein it is reported that the house is old structure and ought to have held that the house has been in existence for the last several years. Since according to the Deputy director cowshed is existing for last several years and because admittedly the house is existing since prior to the cowshed, by natural corollary, it would mean that the house is also in existence since last several years. 16. It is pertinent to note that though on 05/02/2000, the respondent no. 2 complained about the cattle shed, however, she did not then wish to complain with regard to the already existing house. 16. It is pertinent to note that though on 05/02/2000, the respondent no. 2 complained about the cattle shed, however, she did not then wish to complain with regard to the already existing house. She complained about the house only after more than 2 years thereafter by lodging complaint dated 22/05/2002 alleging that the petitioner has constructed illegal house and toilet in her property without obtaining prior N.O.C./permission from the owners of the said property for the purpose of electricity and water supply. Thus, the cause of action for this complaint was not obtaining N.O.C./permission from the owners of the property for the purpose of electricity and water supply. Lastly, the complaint dated 07/09/2005 made to the Deputy Director of Panchayats was specifically for eviction of the petitioner from the property i.e. for protecting proprietary rights of the respondent no.2. In this complaint, it is not stated that there are no permissions, etc. What is stated is that the petitioner has acquired NOC/House Tax Assessment Certificate/Electric and Water connections and other permissions to the “Pucca House” with malpractice and by fraudulent and illegal method with the help of some vested interest officials/office servers of Village Panchayat of Velim. The above cause of action was not proved. 17. It should be kept in mind that in none of the complaints, the respondent no.2 could specify as to since when the said house is existing. Since the petitioner, in his reply had claimed that he has been residing in that dwelling house as Mundkar and having cowshed for last several years, at least one thing was clear that the claim of the petitioner was that the house and cowshed were existing since prior to coming in force of Mundkar Act i.e. prior to 1975-76. Admittedly, an application for declaration of mundkarship filed by the petitioner is pending before the competent authority. 18. The Deputy Director has unnecessarily gone into the right of the petitioner over the said property by saying that he has no right to the same, since his name is not reflected in the occupant's column of Form No.I and XIV. The question of right of the petitioner to occupy the property was not within the realm of the powers of Deputy Director of Panchayats. 19. The petitioner could at least produce document in respect of the said house like house tax receipt no.73, for house no. The question of right of the petitioner to occupy the property was not within the realm of the powers of Deputy Director of Panchayats. 19. The petitioner could at least produce document in respect of the said house like house tax receipt no.73, for house no. 959/A dated 24/4/1999, Ration Card copy of the year 1996 for the same house no. 959/A, electricity bill dated 14/1/1997 for house no. 959/A, NOC for water connection dated 01/08/1999 for house no. 959/A, receipt no. 49 for house and light tax, dated 02/09/1993 for house no. 959/A. These documents were produced to establish that the house was existing since much prior to the complaints. Merely because the electricity, water connection, ration card, etc. were obtained in particular year, that does not mean that the house was constructed in that year and not before that. At least, one document i. e. the receipt no. 49 for house and light tax is dated 02/09/1993, which is prior to the coming into force of the Act. Though, the petitioner could not produce permission to construct the house, however, he had produced evidence to the effect that the same was registered in the records of Village Panchayat and that insofar as the cowshed is concerned, the Village Panchayat itself had issued permission for repairs after due resolution taken in the body meeting dated 11/04/1999. There is no explanation as to why there was no complaint for last several years. The complaints were hit by delay and laches besides for the fact that it was not specified therein as to since when the house and cowshed are in existence. 20. The Deputy Director, therefore, in my view, had committed gross error in holding that the house cannot be treated as “old house” though he had held that the cowshed constructed after the construction of the said house is old structure existing for several years. 21. In Panchayat Appeals No. 45/2007 and 49/2007, the Additional Director of Panchayats has also committed gross error by saying that the petitioner has failed to produce any documents on record proving that he is rightful occupant in Survey No.1/24 of village Velim and that his name does not figure in Form No.I and XIV and it cannot be said that he was an occupant as mundkar and is entitled to benefits of mundkarial rights of the said property. The Additional Director has held that though the petitioner is claiming to be Mundkar of the suit dwelling house and the cowshed in survey No. 1/24 of Velim Village, the petitioner has failed to produce documentary evidence showing that he has obtained permission for the said construction from the Bhatkar/Owner of the suit property and hence the construction done by the petitioner without permission is termed to be illegal. Section 66 of Act pertains to permission from the Panchayat and not from the owner of the property. The Additional Director has observed that the petitioner has produced a copy of the letter stating that he has applied for declaration of Mundkar vide application dated 15/1/2009. But however, since the petitioner failed to produce any notice issued by Mamlatdar in the said proceeding, the Additional Director held that the petitioner is attempting to grab the said property by constructing illegal structure which is not owned by him and therefore, the said construction is without permission of the Panchayat. The Additional Director has, therefore, assumed jurisdiction which he could not have exercised and having been influenced by such wrong findings, went on to dismiss the appeal regarding the house and to allow the appeal regarding the cowshed. The findings of the Additional Director to the effect that the petitioner has not obtained the permission from the Panchayat for construction of the suit house as well as cowshed is totally on wrong basis and cannot at all be sustained. The observation of the Additional Director that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the house and cowshed constructed in Survey No.1/24 of village Velim is legal and old which clearly establishes that the petitioner has constructed the house and cowshed without permission of Panchayat, is also perverse and unsustainable. The order of the Additional Director is absolutely without consideration of the documents produced by the petitioner and without discussing the impact/effect of the complaint dated 05/02/2000 and permission for repairing the cowshed given by village Panchayat vide letter No.VPV/70/1999-2000 dated 23/04/1999 and without consideration of the panchanama/inspection report of the extension officer. 22. Lastly, the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 in Criminal Revision Applications No. 25/2011 and 26/2011 was directed by this Court, in Writ Petitions No. 528 and 529 of 2012, to consider the impact of the documents in the matter in dispute. 22. Lastly, the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 in Criminal Revision Applications No. 25/2011 and 26/2011 was directed by this Court, in Writ Petitions No. 528 and 529 of 2012, to consider the impact of the documents in the matter in dispute. However, the learned District Judge-1 has not at all discussed the impact of the first complaint dated 05/02/2000 wherein the respondent no.2 had specifically stated that the suit house was already existing prior to constructing the cowshed. Then, though the Adhoc District Judge-1 has observed that the permission for repairs to the cowshed is of the year 1999 and the petitioner has not disclosed as to when the said cowshed was constructed by him, and therefore, the cowshed was illegal, however, the question as to how could a permission for repairs of existing cowshed be given by competent authority, that also by taking a resolution in body meeting, has also not been considered by him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the Writ Petitions no. 528 and 529 of 2012 had specifically urged that the petitioner had produced permission from local panchayat for the purpose of reconstruction/ repairs of cowshed on 23/04/1999 and this was noted by this Court in the order dated 19/10/2012. In spite of that, the Adhoc District Judge has not considered the impact of this permission for reconstruction/repairs. 23. The learned Adhoc District Judge-1 has held that no documents have been produced on record by the petitioner prior to the year 1975 and therefore the petitioner cannot be considered as Mundkar and the alleged structure of house and cowshed, as mundkarial structures. This finding of the Adhoc District judge is ex-facie perverse being without having jurisdiction to decide the issue of mundkarship. 24. The attempt of the respondent no. 2 appears to be to protect her proprietary rights by saying that the petitioner has no right to occupy the property belonging to her and therefore should be evicted. The remedy for the above was not under the Act. The petitions, therefore, should succeed. 25. Hence, the petitions are allowed. (a) Impugned orders dated 14/06/2013 passed by Adhoc District Judge-II South Goa, Margao in Civil Revision Applications No. 25/2011/FTC-II and 26/2011/FTC-II are quashed and set aside. Consequently, all previous orders of the Authorities under the Act directing demolition of house/cowshed are quashed and set aside. 26. The petitions, therefore, should succeed. 25. Hence, the petitions are allowed. (a) Impugned orders dated 14/06/2013 passed by Adhoc District Judge-II South Goa, Margao in Civil Revision Applications No. 25/2011/FTC-II and 26/2011/FTC-II are quashed and set aside. Consequently, all previous orders of the Authorities under the Act directing demolition of house/cowshed are quashed and set aside. 26. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 27. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.