JUDGMENT Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, by giving advance copy to the learned Counsel for the respondents, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 28/03/2006 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II at Panaji, Goa, in Panchayat Appeal No. 182/2004. 4. The relevant facts, as stated by the petitioners, are as follows : The petitioner is lawful owner in possession of the house–property situated at Tropa Vaddo, Sodiem, Siolem, Bardez, Goa bearing Survey No.215/11-A of Sodiem village. The said property is bounded on the east by a public drain. The petitioner has always had a small compound wall on the eastern part of the said property abutting public drain which wall also served as retaining wall. Due to heavy flow of rain waters through successive monsoons, the said retaining wall suffered damage over a period of years and required urgent repairs to prevent its imminent collapse and also to prevent soil erosion. Without a proper retaining wall, the mud from the petitioner's property would have found its way into the drain since the petitioner's property is at a higher altitude as compared to said drain. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner repaired the said compound wall without doing any extension to the same, though in the process of repairs the height of the said wall got slightly raised. The respondents served a notice dated 06/10/2004 purporting to be under Section 64(1) (j) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') directing the petitioner to stop the unlawful construction alleging that one Dilip Patre and Smt. Kalavati Vernekar had brought to the notice of the Sarpanch that the petitioner had been carrying out illegal construction of the compound wall blocking utility public access, without obtaining prior permission from the Panchayat. By another notice dated 06/10/2004 purporting to be under Section 82 of the Act, the petitioner was informed by the Sarpanch that the Village Panchayat wanted to conduct an enquiry into the complaint lodged by said Dilip Patre and Smt. Kalavati Vernekar and the petitioner was asked to remain present at the site on 08/10/2004 at 8.30 a.m. Subsequently, by an order-cum-notice dated 09/11/2004 under Section 63(3) of the Act, the petitioner was directed to stop the construction immediately on the receipt of the notice and was asked to show cause as to why the said unlawful construction should not be demolished and the costs recovered from the petitioner. In this notice, it was further stated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the same within 15 days, further action as contemplated under Section 64(4) of the Act shall be taken. The petitioner by his reply dated 24/11/2004, inter alia, stated that he had not done any illegal construction and that the compound wall had been always in existence protecting the public drain and serving as a retaining wall. He also stated that the persons, at whose behest the notice had been issued, were hostile to him and a civil suit was filed by one of them namely Shri Dilip Patre which was pending in the Civil Court at Mapusa. The petitioner requested the respondents to revoke the said notice. The respondents, finally, by notice dated 13/12/2004, under Section 66(4) of the Act, directed the petitioner to demolish the illegally constructed compound wall within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. In this notice it was further stated that if the petitioner fails to demolish, then the Panchayat would demolish the same. The petitioner preferred an appeal, under Section 66(5) of the Act, against the said order/demolition notice dated 13/12/2004 to the Director of Panchayats at Panaji. The said Panchayat Appeal No.182/2004 was heard by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II and by impugned judgment and order dated 28/03/2006, the appeal was dismissed and the ex-parte order granting stay of the operation of the notice of Village Panchayat dated 13/12/2004 during the pendency of the appeal was vacated. 5. The said Panchayat Appeal No.182/2004 was heard by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II and by impugned judgment and order dated 28/03/2006, the appeal was dismissed and the ex-parte order granting stay of the operation of the notice of Village Panchayat dated 13/12/2004 during the pendency of the appeal was vacated. 5. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the Additional Director of Panchayats alleging that there was no compliance of the principles of natural justice and that the show cause notice was an empty formality and the respondent Panchayat had already prejudged the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the compound wall was an old wall existing since much prior to establishment of the Village Panchayat and the Village Panchayat Regulations and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner producing any letter saying that he had obtained permission from the Village Panchayat. The petitioner further alleged that the law does not require that in every case, construction otherwise legal but which may be technically illegal for want of prior permission should be demolished and in such cases, the course of regularising the same on imposition of monetary penalties and recovering prescribed fees is open to the Village Panchayat. The petitioner produced on record the show cause notices, replies, appeal memo, stay application, impugned judgment, application for regularisation, and photographs. 6. An affidavit-in-reply came to be filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents, in short, alleged as follows: The respondent no.1 had received two complaints from vigilant villagers complaining about illegal construction carried out by the petitioner and in one of the complaints, it was mentioned that the construction of the compound wall was being done so as to block the public access. Therefore, respondent no.1 swung into action and issued an order to stop the unauthorised construction in terms of Section 64(1)(J) of the Act. The traditional access is shown to be existing in the cadastral survey plan which is along the bank of nullah on its western side and in the property of the petitioner which access has a width of 2.50 metres to 2.70 metres. The traditional access is shown to be existing in the cadastral survey plan which is along the bank of nullah on its western side and in the property of the petitioner which access has a width of 2.50 metres to 2.70 metres. The respondent no.1 carried out the site inspection on 08/10/2004 and drew a panchanama along with sketch and it was revealed that the petitioner, without permission of the Panchayat, was constructing the compound wall on the eastern side of the petitioner's property i.e. on the edge of the nullah and the construction of the compound wall was also coming up on the north and south of the petitioner's property and the said construction on the north and south was blocking the traditional access. The petitioner had compound wall on the western side of his property running from south to north direction which was further about 2.50 metres to 2.70 metres away from the existing nullah and towards the property of the petitioner. The space between the nullah and the old compound wall of the petitioner i.e. 2.50 metres to 2.70 metres serves as the public access. The Panchayat thereafter issued show cause notice and considered the reply of the petitioner and since the same was not upto mark and not supported by documentary evidence, it was resolved by the Panchayat to issue demolition notice. The respondent no.1, subsequently, received a letter dated 22/08/2006 from the petitioner requesting to regularise the said compound wall and the Panchayat by resolution dated 18/09/2006 resolved to consider the regularisation, provided public access is maintained by keeping open the compound wall at the place where the public access passes. 7. The respondents produced the copy of the cadastral plan, the sketch and photographs showing the construction, copy of the resolution dated 30/11/2004, copy of the application for regularisation dated 22/08/2006 and resolution dated 18/09/2006. 8. In the affidavit filed today, inter alia, the petitioner stated that it is clear from the reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner has constructed the compound wall within his own property and the same is not in violation of any building rules. He alleged that it is legally permissible to construct a boundary or compound wall on the boundary of the property. He alleged that the resolution of Panchayat dated 09/11/2004 did not say that the compound wall has been constructed on any existing public access. He alleged that it is legally permissible to construct a boundary or compound wall on the boundary of the property. He alleged that the resolution of Panchayat dated 09/11/2004 did not say that the compound wall has been constructed on any existing public access. He further stated that in any event, the Panchayat, acting under the provisions of the Act, has no jurisdiction to inquire into and to adjudicate upon the claim of existence of the public access in a privately owned property. He stated that refusal of the Panchayat to consider the petitioner's request for regularization is illegal and arbitrary. He further stated that after filing of the petition, the respondent Panchayat granted the construction licence dated 18/07/2011 for carrying out reconstruction and addition to the existing residential house in the petitioner's property in accordance with the approved plans. According to the petitioners, the respondent Panchayat, therefore, accepted the existence of the compound wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property. He stated that in the record of rights of the petitioner's property, there is no mention of any public access. 9. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, invited my attention to the site plan attached to the affidavit filed today which shows the boundary of the property. He submitted that the compound wall is exactly on the said boundary. He further submitted that a perusal of the notice issued by the Panchayat would reveal that the Panchayat has taken upon itself to decide about the existence of the public access. According to the learned Counsel, the Panchayat has no power to decide about the existence or non-existence of the public access. He submitted that the show cause notices are without any details and cannot be termed as show cause notices. He pointed out that the reply filed by the petitioners had brought out all the relevant facts about the existence of the compound wall prior to coming into force the Village Panchayat Regulations and mere repairs having been carried out to the same. He submitted that there is no application of mind by the authorities to the reply filed by the petitioners and, therefore, there is patent violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that there is no application of mind by the authorities to the reply filed by the petitioners and, therefore, there is patent violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that along with the reply, only one complaint of Kalavati Vernekar has been produced and in that complaint, she says that she heard from others that there is public access. He invited my attention to the affidavit of Dilip Patre, annexed to the affidavit, filed today by the petitioner, in which Dilip has stated all the facts in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that in the resolution dated 30/11/2004 in which it was resolved to take action in terms of Section 66(4) of the Act, the reply given by the petitioner was not considered. According to the learned Counsel, in the resolution dated 18/09/2006, the respondents could not have put a condition that the access be left. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In the alternative, he urged that petitioners be permitted to file a fresh application before the respondents for regularisation and the Panchayat be directed to consider the same by taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner and without going into the aspect of the alleged access. According to the learned Counsel, that would serve the purpose in the interest of justice. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments : (i) Syed Muzaffar Ali and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; [1995 SUPP(4) SCC 426]. (ii) Judgment dated 19/02/2013 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.616/2008 in the case of Shri Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and another versus Shri Gurudas B. Korgaonkar and others. 11. On the contrary, Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, read out a paragraph from the reply filed by the petitioner to show cause notice wherein it has been specifically stated that the petitioner repaired the existing retaining wall and slightly raised its height without indulging in any extension/encroachment whatsoever. He submitted that, therefore, there is an admission that not only the repair work has been done but also some new construction has been done for which no permission was obtained as required under the Act. He submitted that, therefore, there is an admission that not only the repair work has been done but also some new construction has been done for which no permission was obtained as required under the Act. He, thus urged that in the light of the said admission, there can be no fault found with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II in Panchayat Appeal No.182/2004. He contended that in a Writ Petition of this nature, where illegality has been admitted, the Court would not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out from clause (viii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971 (the Rules), that the Village Panchayat, before granting permission, has to ensure that the existing traditional paths are not obstructed. He, therefore, submitted that the Panchayat, in its power, had considered the complaints regarding blocking of the traditional access. He further pointed out that in any case, the notices issued by the Panchayat also speak about lack of required permission to do the construction. He further submitted that merely because there was only one complaint produced by the respondents along with the reply that does not matter, since admittedly there is illegality. He submitted that the affidavit of Dilip Patre now filed along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is dated 11/09/2013 which is much after the date of the impugned judgment and order and the same cannot be looked into, since it is of a person, who has now changed the hands. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the Act, there is no provision of regularisation of the construction or for grant of licence after erection or commencement of erection of any building. He submitted that the Rules are by way of delegated legislation. Hence, in the absence of provision in the main Act, there could not be sub-rule (6) in Rule 3 enacted for making the provision to obtain permission after erection or commencement of erection of a building. He submitted that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 616/2008. Hence, in the absence of provision in the main Act, there could not be sub-rule (6) in Rule 3 enacted for making the provision to obtain permission after erection or commencement of erection of a building. He submitted that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 616/2008. He further read out paragraph 5 of the judgment in the case of “Syed Muzaffar Ali and others” (supra) and submitted that the petitioner was not permitted to move the authorities for regularisation, but it has been stated that the petitioner may, if so advised, seek regularisation if the same is permissible and the dismissal of the petition will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and granting such reliefs as the petitioner may be entitled to it under the law. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, therefore, the Panchayat has no power to regularise any illegal construction. He further submitted that the resolution refusing to grant regularisation, can be challenged by the petitioners under Section 178 of the Act and, therefore, there being an alternate remedy, such a question should not be dealt with in this petition. He further pointed out that the said resolution on regularization has not been challenged before this Court and, therefore, this Court cannot go into the said aspect. 12. In rejoinder, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that no one has challenged the said sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules and as the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the said provision in Writ Petition No.616/2008, this Court can also very well consider the same. 13. I have gone through the entire material on record. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 14. Section 64(1)(j) of the Act provides that the Sarpanch of the Panchayat shall, in addition to the power exercisable under any other provision of this Act or Rules made thereunder, stop any unauthorised construction erected in the Panchayat area notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Act and place the matter immediately before the ensuing meeting of the Panchayat for taking suitable decision. 15. 15. Section 66(1) of the Act provides that subject to the said rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building without the written permission of the Panchayat. Therefore, repairs as well as addition to any existing building, require permission of the Panchayat. In terms of Section 2(2) of the Act, 'Building' includes a house, outhouse, stable, privy, urinals, shed, hut, wall and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or any other material, but does not include a temporary structure erected on ceremonial or festive occasion or a tent. Thus, the compound wall or a retaining wall is included in the definition of the building. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 66 of the Act provide as under: (3) Whenever any building is erected, added to or reconstructed without such permission or in any manner contrary to the rules prescribed under subsection (1) or any conditions imposed by the permission granted, the Panchayat may,— (a) direct that the building, alteration or addition be stopped; or (b) by written notice require within a reasonable period to be specified therein, such building alteration or addition to be altered or demolished. (4) In the event of non-compliance with terms of any notice under clause (b) of sub-section (3) within the period specified in the notice, it shall be lawful for the Panchayat to take such action as may be necessary for the completion of the act thereby required to be done, and all the expenses therein incurred by the Panchayat shall be paid by the person or persons upon whom the notice was served and shall be recoverable as if it were a tax imposed under this Act. 16. In the show cause notice dated 06/10/2004 issued to the petitioner, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has carried out illegal construction of the compound wall and blocked the traditional public access without obtaining prior permission from the Panchayat which is required under Section 66 of the Act. Vide further notice dated 06/10/2004, the petitioners were requested to remain present at the site on 08/10/2004 at 10.30 a.m. along with the documents for the purpose of enquiry. The notice dated 09/11/2004 under Section 66(3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Vide further notice dated 06/10/2004, the petitioners were requested to remain present at the site on 08/10/2004 at 10.30 a.m. along with the documents for the purpose of enquiry. The notice dated 09/11/2004 under Section 66(3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. In answer to this notice, the petitioner filed a reply dated 24/11/2004 in which he has admitted that he repaired the existing retaining wall and slightly raised its height. It is only thereafter that the final notice for demolition, under Section 66(4) of the Act was issued. Admittedly, for doing the said construction, the petitioner had not obtained licence/permission as required under Section 66 of the Act. 17. In the circumstances above, no fault can at all be found with the judgment and order dated 28/03/2006 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II in Panchayat Appeal No.182/2004. The Additional Director of Panchayats-II considered the appeal memo, reply filed by the Panchayat and heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He considered the panchanama conducted on 08/10/2004 in the presence of two panch witnesses and the sketch drawn by the Secretary. He considered the statements of Shri Prasad Mandrekar and Smt. Maria Perpatua Fernandes. He also considered the resolutions passed by the Panchayat. The Additional Director of Panchayats-II found that it is fully established that the construction of the compound wall is illegal and that the petitioner could not show any permission of the Panchayat obtained before starting the construction work. He held that permission for reconstruction of compound wall is mandatory and that the permission was also required for repair works of the compound wall. In all the circumstances above, the Additional Director of Panchayat held that the order/demolition notice dated 13/12/2004 is not illegal or perverse. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. There is absolutely no error or illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat. Therefore, the question of setting aside the said order by exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, does not at all arise. 18. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he be permitted to file fresh application for regularisation and that the respondents be directed to consider the same afresh, without going into the aspect of the alleged access, cannot be accepted. 19. 18. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he be permitted to file fresh application for regularisation and that the respondents be directed to consider the same afresh, without going into the aspect of the alleged access, cannot be accepted. 19. In the case of "Syed Muzaffar Ali and others" (supra), the Apex Court has held thus: "The mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases of grave and serious breaches of the licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition. These are matters for the authorities to consider at the appropriate time having regard to nature of the transgressions. It is open to the petitioners to move the authorities for such relief as may be available to them at law. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a plan indicating the nature and extent of the unauthorised constructions carried out and seek regularisation, if such regularisation is permissible. The dismissal of the petitions challenging the demolition orders in the present case, will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and granting such relief as the petitioners may be entitled to under law.” 20. It is not known whether the building regulations referred to in the case of “Syed Muzaffar Ali and ors”.(supra), allowed regularisation of the constructions erected without permission. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to file application for regularisation, if such relief is available under the law and the authorities were directed to examine the same in accordance with law. 21. In Writ Petition No. 616/2008, this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Syed Muzaffar Ali and others" (supra) and sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, held that there are enough powers given to the Panchayat to grant permission though respondent no.2 had no permission prior to putting up the construction. 22. By order dated 16/08/2006 passed in this writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to apply for regularisation, if Rules permit, without prejudice to his own rights. 22. By order dated 16/08/2006 passed in this writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to apply for regularisation, if Rules permit, without prejudice to his own rights. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed an application dated 22/08/2006 before the respondents for regularisation of the repairs/reconstruction of the compound wall in the property bearing Survey No.215/11/A. By resolution dated 18/09/2006, the Panchayat Committee resolved that the petitioner should keep open the access, which he had blocked, for passage of the public and thereafter, his request for regularisation can be considered. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said resolution passed by the Panchayat in its meeting dated 18/09/2006, the petitioner could have filed an appeal under Section 178 of the Act before the Director of Panchayats. The petitioner has not challenged the said resolution at all before the Director of Panchayats nor has he challenged the said resolution in the present petition. By order dated 15/11/2006, this Court, while issuing 'Rule' and granting interim order in terms of prayer clause (b), had observed that pendency of the petition does not preclude the parties for getting the compound wall in question regularised, by taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. This Court is not inclined to go into the question of validity of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, since the said sub-rule has not been challenged in this writ petition by any of the parties. However, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to again apply for regularisation in the light of the above developments. Since clause (viii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules require the Village Panchayat to ensure that the existing traditional paths are not obstructed before granting permission, the question of directing the Panchayat to consider the regularisation without going into the aspect of blockade of access, does not at all arise. If the Rules permit, the petitioner, on his own, can file any application to the respondents, which will have to be decided by the respondents, in accordance with law. 23. In view of the discussion supra, there is no merit in the petition, which deserves to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.