JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri L. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal and the learned Dy. Collector against one Mr. Simon D’Souza inter-alia directing him to demolish an illegal encroachment in the nallah allegedly existing in the property surveyed under nos.48/16 and 50/7 of Village Anjuna. The petitioner has sought leave to challenge the said orders. It is contended by Shri Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate that the said portion is also used as a pathway. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner is the occupier of the house adjoining to the alleged encroachment and no notice with that regard has been issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents have only served a notice to Mr. Simon D’Souza who is the son of the petitioner and is living abroad. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was grossly prejudiced in case the impugned order is allowed to stand as it may result in deterioration of the house occupied by the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that the alleged encroachment is in fact a footing which has been erected by the petitioner to support the existing structure which was in existence for last several decades. 4. On the other hand, Shri Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has pointed out that the petitioner was very well aware about the proceedings and did not take any initiative to get herself impleaded in the said proceedings. The learned counsel further pointed out that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by any of the orders, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities with her so called grievances and not to rush to this Court in this present petition. The learned counsel as such submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be permitted to challenge the impugned order as she was not a party therein. 5. The learned counsel as such submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be permitted to challenge the impugned order as she was not a party therein. 5. Shri L. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has pointed out that a resolution has been taken by the panchayat to improve the existing nallah and the pathway by a resolution dated 16.07.2012. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and I have also gone through the records. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the impugned order and consequently as no steps were taken by the petitioner at the appropriate time to get herself impleaded in the proceedings, I find that it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the impugned order at the instance of the petitioner herein. 7. Be that as it may, taking note of the contention of Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is an occupier of the suit house and grave prejudice would occasion to her in case the alleged encroachment is ordered to be removed, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice that the petitioner be given an opportunity to file an application before the learned Dy. Collector with regard to her grievances/objections to the said order of demolition issued by the learned Dy. Collector. In case any such objections are raised by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, the learned Dy. Collector shall proceed to decide such application on its own merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The observations in the impugned order shall not influence the learned Dy. Collector while deciding such application on its own merits. 8. By consent of the learned counsels, in case the petitioner files an application within 15 days from today, the respondents agreed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed encroachment until disposal of such application. In case, no such application is filed, the said order shall be automatically vacated. 9. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.