JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7. Mr. K. Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The above Public Interest Litigation came to be filed seeking the following reliefs: a) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the following judgments and orders passed by the respondent no.6. i) Judgment and order dated 4/3/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.65/2009. ii) Judgment and order dated 15/04/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.97/2009. iii) Judgment and order dated 15/10/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.171/2009. iv) Judgment and order dated 8/7/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.199/2009. b) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the construction licence dated 28/11/2006 bearing no.VP/SJA/2006-0747 issued by Respondent no.4 and the NOC dated 22/11/2006 bearing No.TPM/CONST/SJDA/59/3/06/3308 issued by the respondent no.3 to the Respondent no.7. c) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the conversion sanad dated 11/4/2006 bearing no.AC-II/SG/CONV-215/2005 issued by the respondent no.5 to the respondent no.7. d) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent nos.3 to 5 to forthwith revoke/withdraw all permission for development/construction granted to the Respondent no.7 with respect to the property bearing survey no.59/3 of village Sao Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa. e) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the Respondent no.7 to demolish forthwith all the illegal constructions carried out in the property bearing survey no.59/3 of village Sao Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition. f) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the Occupancy Certificate dated 20/3/2011 bearing no.VP/SJA/2010-11/1608 issued by the Respondent no.4 to the Respondent no.7. g) Such other reliefs this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. h) For costs of this petition. f) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the Occupancy Certificate dated 20/3/2011 bearing no.VP/SJA/2010-11/1608 issued by the Respondent no.4 to the Respondent no.7. g) Such other reliefs this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. h) For costs of this petition. i) For an appropriate writ order or directions thereby quashing the technical clearance order dated 22/12/2011 bearing reference no.TPN/CONST/SJA/59/3/2011/7068 issued to the Respondent no.7 by the respondent no.3. j) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith take vacant possession of the land admeasuring 204 sq.metres of survey no.59/3 of village Sao Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa illegally occupied by the respondent no.7. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Town Planner has issued the order dated 24/1/2014 inter alia directing the demolition of the disputed structure in the concerned property. Mr. Nigel Da Costa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that as the concerned property is lying in non-planning area, such directions, if any, are to be issued by the local Village Panchayat, in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Noorani, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents upon instructions from the Chief Town Planner, who is present in the Court states that the said order dated 24/1/2014 would have to be followed up by the local Village Panchayat, in accordance with law. 5. Subsequently, by an order dated 26/2/2014, the Town Planner has passed further order withdrawing the technical clearance issued to the private respondent no.7. Taking note of the action taken by the concerned authorities pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and taking note of the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner in the above Public Interest Litigation, we find that the petition has worked out and as such the petition be disposed of accordingly. Needless to say that the remedies available to the respondent no.7 would not be affected and the concerned Authorities would decide such proceeding in case initiated by the respondent no.7 independently on its own merits, in accordance with law. 6. The said statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions is accepted and as such the Village Panchayat shall act accordingly. 7. 6. The said statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions is accepted and as such the Village Panchayat shall act accordingly. 7. Subject to the rights of the respondent no.7 referred to above the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.