Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 632 (BOM)

Laxmikant Naik v. State of Goa

2013-03-13

F.M.REIS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. 4. The order impugned in the above petition is one passed by the learned Dy. Collector dated 24.04.2008 as well as the judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 01.08.2012. The essence of the impugned order is that the petitioner did not have the requisite conversion of the land to put up the construction. As such, the respondent no.2 has directed that the action be taken under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code against the said construction. It appears from the records that the learned Dy. Collector had given liberty to the petitioner to get regularisation of the said structure located in the property surveyed under No.5/10 of Village Goltim within a specified period of time. But however, the petitioner was not in a position to obtain such reguIarisation essentially on the ground that the Town and Country Planning Authority had found that the requisite set back was not available for the disputed structure at the site. 5. Shri R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the above petition and on account of subsequent events the petitioner has been in a position to procure the requisite area of land by sale deed dated 28.02.2013 to satisfy the defects raised by the Town and Country Planning Authority in respect of the disputed structure. The learned counsel further pointed out that though the possession of the said portion of land was, already with the petitioner nevertheless, the petitioner did not have the document of title to establish the said aspect. The learned counsel further pointed out that in view of the execution of the sale deed, the deficiency raised by the Town and Country Planning Authority do not survive and as such, the petitioner is in a position to satisfy the requirements so that the conversion can be obtained from the learned Collector. 6. Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 6. Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has pointed out that despite purchase of the said portion of the property, it appears that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that unless such regularisation is obtained, the question of respondent no.2 considering the application for conversion of the land would not arise. Shri R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however, pointed out that the petitioner has already filed an application for conversion before the learned Collector on 04.03.2013. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the said subsequent events as submitted by Shri R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice that liberty be given to the petitioner to file an application before the learned Dy. Collector to recall the impugned order dated 24.04.2008 and in case any such application is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the respondent no.2 should decide the said application on its own merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is also at liberty to take necessary steps to get the regularisation of the disputed structure before the concerned authority in accordance with law. Until disposal of the said application intended to be filed by the petitioner, the learned Dy. Collector will defer taking any coercive action on the basis of the impugned order dated 24.04.2008. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. 8. In case no such application is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, the above liberty given to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated. 9. In view of the above, Rule stands disposed of in above terms. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.