JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21/02/2013 and 06/05/2013 passed by the learned Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa Sub-Division Mapusa-Goa in case No. GLPC/ILL/MAP/12/2011. 4. On 09/02/2011, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa alleging that the property known as “Batti” admeasuring about 5387 square metres bearing survey no.111 of Village Oxel of Bardez Taluka was partitioned vide Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990 between Mr. Luis D'Souza and Mr. Antonio Mariano D'Souza and that the respondent no.2, being the legal heir of Mr. Luis D'Souza, was allotted Part “B” admeasuring 2850 square metres. It was alleged that on 10/07/2010, the petitioner, being the owner of the Part “A”, has blocked the access existing in the said property which allows the complainant (respondent no.2) to enter her plot namely Part 'B' of the property. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under the Goa Land (Prohibition on Construction) Act 1995(the Act, for short). A show cause notice dated 12/07/2011 was issued to the petitioner regarding the said alleged blockage in violation of Section 4 and 6 of the Act and asking to show cause as to why the said illegally blocked access should not be removed and the land restored to its original position. 5. The petitioner, who is the wife of late Antonio Mariano D'Souza, filed her reply dated 23/12/2011 alleging that the access claimed to be blocked is a boundary line of the plot of the petitioner and nobody can be restrained from fencing the boundary line of her plot. It was alleged that the said boundary fencing was existing for the past several years. The petitioner further stated that the said access is a private access to the temple and not to the plot of the complainant. Without prejudice, it was stated that the access is open to the extent of one metre enabling the complainant to enter her plot. The petitioner further stated that the said access is a private access to the temple and not to the plot of the complainant. Without prejudice, it was stated that the access is open to the extent of one metre enabling the complainant to enter her plot. She specifically stated that they have not blocked any access of the complainant as there was not more than one metre wide access in the property bearing survey no.111/6-B. It was also stated that the said access does not belong to the Government or to any local authority or to any communidade and hence the complaint does not fall under the provisions of the Act. 6. The learned Deputy Collector found that the Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990, between Mr. Luis D'Souza and his wife Mrs. Sebastiana Estefinia Fernandes D'Souza on one side and Mr. Antonio Mariano D'Souza and his wife Mrs. Maria Conceicao Fernandes D'Souza, on the other side, mentions that there exists an access which is touching to the plot 'B' which is also shown on the Survey Plan. He found that there was no dispute that there was an access in the said property. The learned Deputy Collector, in the impugned order observed that both the parties agreed to maintain the access as identified in the said Deed of Partition and that the petitioner agreed that he will not disturb the grown up coconut trees. The learned Deputy Collector observed that by an order dated 08/08/2012, a direction was made to maintain the access as per the Deed of Partition and that the encroachment shall be removed on or before 16/08/2012. 7. The learned Deputy Collector, at the request of both the parties, deputed a Surveyor who conducted inspection on 21/11/2012 and submitted report. The petitioner filed objections to the said report which are dated 17/12/2012. The petitioner stated that she has not obstructed the access to the said property and has in fact undertaken to maintain the same as per the Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990. She alleged that the report of the Surveyor is ambiguous and does not correspond to the survey plan and/or to the Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990. She alleged that the finding given by the Surveyor that the access which was blocked by stacking of the laterite stones and by erecting fencing to the width of 3.00 metres, as shown in the sketch, is incorrect. She alleged that the finding given by the Surveyor that the access which was blocked by stacking of the laterite stones and by erecting fencing to the width of 3.00 metres, as shown in the sketch, is incorrect. It was alleged that no dimensions or measurements were given in the sketch attached to the report. It was further alleged that the report as well as the sketch is silent about the points that were taken as the base-points to identify the boundaries of the properties and the extent of the alleged blockage. It was also stated that the sketch attached to the report was not to scale. The petitioner sought to rely upon the photographs attached to the objections. 8. However, in the impugned order dated 21/2/2013, the learned Deputy Collector, upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the said survey plan and the report, relied upon the said report of the Field Surveyor and held that the petitioner has carried out illegal obstruction on the access. He, therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the stones from the distance of 6.50 metres to the eastern boundary and clear the blockage within 15 days. 9. Subsequently, by order dated 06/05/2013, the learned Deputy Collector directed the Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka to remove the said stacking of stones as ordered in the Order dated 21/02/2013. 10. Mr. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order under the Act and that both the impugned orders are bound to be set aside only on this ground. He further pointed out that the learned Deputy Collector has blindly relied upon the report of the Field Surveyor and his sketch. His grievance is that no inquiry was conducted by the learned Deputy Collector and the report of the Field Surveyor was acted upon though the petitioner had filed objections to the said report. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submitted that the report of the Surveyor and his sketch should be believed because the Surveyor was deputed at the request of both the parties and he has no reason to give a false report. 11. Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submitted that the report of the Surveyor and his sketch should be believed because the Surveyor was deputed at the request of both the parties and he has no reason to give a false report. He submitted that the report of the Field Surveyor and the sketch clearly shows the petitioner has carried out illegal obstruction on the said access which is mentioned in the Deed of Partition. He, however, fairly conceded that there were objections filed by the petitioner to the said report of the Field Surveyor and no inquiry was conducted. He also conceded that though the petitioner had raised the question of jurisdiction, the same has not been decided by the Deputy Collector. 12. Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the matter be relegated to the learned Deputy Collector with a direction to conduct inquiry with regard to the blockage of access and to decide the matter afresh by deciding the question of jurisdiction also. 13. Upon consideration of the material on record, more particularly the report of the Field Surveyor, his sketch and the objections filed by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the Deputy Collector to conduct inquiry on the question of blockage. A perusal of the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act also shows that the matter should be relegated to the Dy collector as he has not at all decided the question of Jurisdiction, though raised before him. 14. A perusal of the impugned Orders reveal that the learned Deputy Collector has heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and for the purpose of deciding the question of blockage has blindly relied upon the report of the Field Surveyor and the sketch though there were various objections taken by the petitioner to the said report and sketch. It is seen from the impugned orders that no inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector. It is further seen that in the reply, the petitioner had specifically stated that the alleged access is not belonging to the Government and that the petitioner has not carried out any construction on the land belonging to the Government, any local authority or Communidade due to which the complaint cannot be filed under the provisions of the Act. It is further seen that in the reply, the petitioner had specifically stated that the alleged access is not belonging to the Government and that the petitioner has not carried out any construction on the land belonging to the Government, any local authority or Communidade due to which the complaint cannot be filed under the provisions of the Act. It is seen from the impugned orders that the learned Deputy Collector has not at all decided the said question whether he has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or not. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter requires to be relegated to the learned Deputy collector so that the same is decided in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice. 15. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. ORDER (a) The impugned orders dated 21/02/2013 and 06/05/2013 passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa Sub-Division Mapusa, Goa in case No. GLPC/ILL/MAP/12/2011, are quashed and set aside. (b) The case is relegated to the Deputy Collector & S.D.M., Mapusa to conduct inquiry in the matter of show cause notice dated 12/07/2011 regarding the illegal blockage of access. (c) The parties shall be given opportunity to cross-examine the Field Surveyor on his report dated 26/11/2012, if desired to do so. (d) The Deputy Collector shall conclude the inquiry expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from date of appearance of the parties before him. (e) All the contentions of the parties including the objections of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to pass order under the Goa Land (Prohibition on Construction) Act 1995 are kept open. (f) Parties to appear before the Deputy Collector on 12th February, 2014 at 3.00 p.m. (g) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 16. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.