JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment and order dated 14/11/2014, passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge, Panaji in Civil Revision Application No.31/2014. By the impugned judgment, the learned Ad hoc District Judge, while dismissing the Revision Application, has confirmed the action of demolition of the disputed structure, initiated by the Village Panchayat, Calangute. 2. Although this petition arises out of the demolition notice dated 15/10/2012 (wrongly mentioned as 12/10/2012), some antecedent events will have to be noticed, in order to appropriate the rival contentions raised by the parties. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus : That in the year 2008, ten show cause notices came to be issued by the first respondent Village Panchayat to the petitioner under Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (Act, for short) directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an action for demolition of the alleged illegal and unauthorised structures situated in Survey No.242/1 and 246/1 of Village Panchayat, Calangute, should not be taken. On receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioner wrote to the Village Panchayat on 09/08/2008, requesting to furnish him the copies of the maps and plans prepared by the Director of Land and Survey Records, on the basis of which, notices were issued. According to the petitioner, the said plans were never supplied to him. On 11/08/2008, the petitioner filed separate replies to the 10 show cause notices. On 27/02/2009, the respondent Village Panchayat issued three demolition orders bearing nos.(i) VP/Cal/F-20/Demolition/08-09/6233, (ii) VP/Cal/F-20/Demolition/08-09/6234 and (iii) VP/Cal/F- 20/Demolition/08-09/6235. (For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as demolition order Nos.6233, 6234 and 6235). According to the petitioner, the demolition notice nos.6234 and 6235 were executed and the structures subject matter of these orders were demolished. In so far as the demolition order no.6233 is concerned, the petitioner challenged the same before the learned Additional Director of Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal No.106/2009. The said appeal came to be withdrawn in view of the clarification by the Panchayat that the petitioner's structure in property bearing Survey No.242/1 will not be demolished under the garb of the said demolition order. On 19/08/2011, the Village Panchayat issued a corrigendum to the demolition order No.6233 and substituted Survey No.246/1 of village Calangute therein. The said appeal came to be withdrawn in view of the clarification by the Panchayat that the petitioner's structure in property bearing Survey No.242/1 will not be demolished under the garb of the said demolition order. On 19/08/2011, the Village Panchayat issued a corrigendum to the demolition order No.6233 and substituted Survey No.246/1 of village Calangute therein. According to the petitioner, although the said demolition order was addressed to the petitioner, the structure standing in Survey No.246/1 does not belong to him, whereas the structure on Survey No.242/1 was belonging to the petitioner. In view of the corrigendum, the petitioner apprehended that under the garb of execution of the order nos.6233 as corrected, the petitioner would attempt to demolish the structure in Survey No.242/1 and hence, the petitioner challenged the same in Panchayat Appeal No.103/2011 before the Director of Panchayats. 4. The learned Additional Director partly allowed the appeal on 02/01/2012 and remanded the matter back to the respondent Village Panchayat for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. 5. It appears that this Court vide order dated 29/02/2012 in PILWP No.5/2012, filed by one Mr. Sylvester D'Souza, directed the respondent Panchayat to decide the matter pursuant to the order of remand dated 02/01/2012. 6. In view of this, the Village Panchayat sought a reply from the petitioner, which was filed on 21/03/2012. On 21/07/2012, the Village Panchayat issued yet another order of demolition bearing No.VP/CAL/F/20/Demolition/12-13/1037 (Demolition Order No. 1037, for short), which was in respect of a swimming pool. According to the petitioner, the said swimming pool is located 5 WP749/14 beyond 200 metres of the High Tide Line (HTL) and as such, does not fall within the No Development Zone (NDZ). The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Additional Director in Appeal No.61/2002, which was allowed by the Additional Director. 7. On 15/09/2012, yet another show cause notice bearing No.VP/CAL/F-20/12-13/1913 was issued to the petitioner by the Village Panchayat and which was in respect of a Ground + two storied structure and a swimming pool. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice on 28/09/2012 seeking its withdrawal. By a communication dated 27/09/2012, the petitioner was called upon to submit certain documents. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice on 28/09/2012 seeking its withdrawal. By a communication dated 27/09/2012, the petitioner was called upon to submit certain documents. On 01/10/2012, the authorised representative of the petitioner attended the office of the Village Panchayat and sought personal hearing, when he was directed to file written submissions on the ground that personal hearing is not provided. Ultimately, by an order dated 15/10/2012, the respondent Village Panchayat directed demolition of the building consisting of ground + two stories and the swimming pool (hereinafter referred to as disputed structure) belonging to the petitioner, situated in Survey No.242/1 of Calangute. The case all along made out by the petitioner was that the disputed structures do not fall within the NDZ and thus do not violate the Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations (CRZ Regulations). It was, however, contended that, as permission was not obtained prior to construction of the said structures, the petitioner has sought regularisation of the same by an application filed on 24/09/2003. It appears that the Village Panchayat forwarded the application for regulariation to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA). The GCZMA, in its meeting on 01/09/2005 found that the site inspection is necessary to be carried out to consider the case for regularisation in view of the CRZ norms. It is a matter of record that subsequently nothing happened as no inspection was carried out in spite of the petitioner sending several reminders to the GCZMA. The petitioner claimed before the Village Panchayat that the show cause notice be discharged or at least kept in abeyance until the GCZMA decides the application for regularisation. 8. The Village Panchayat considered the show cause notice along with reply in its meeting held on 08/10/2012 and found that the reply was unsatisfactory and the petitioner had failed to produce any documents such as the licence, approved plans, etc. in support of the construction of the disputed structures. In that view of the matter, the Village Panchayat, by an order dated 15/10/2012, directed the demolition of the disputed structures situated in Survey No.242/1 of village Calangute. 9. The petitioner challenged the same in Panchayat Appeal No.83/2012 before the Additional Director of Panchayats. In the said appeal, Mr. Sylvester D'Souza sought intervention, which was 7 WP749/14 allowed. In that view of the matter, the Village Panchayat, by an order dated 15/10/2012, directed the demolition of the disputed structures situated in Survey No.242/1 of village Calangute. 9. The petitioner challenged the same in Panchayat Appeal No.83/2012 before the Additional Director of Panchayats. In the said appeal, Mr. Sylvester D'Souza sought intervention, which was 7 WP749/14 allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner produced on record a communication bearing No. GCZMA/Bar/Cal / 12-13/09/83 issued by the GCZMA. 10. It appears that in the meantime, the PIL Writ Petition No.26/2012 came to be filed before this Court, in which the petitioner Nalini Fernandes was impleaded as a respondent. It was pointed out on behalf of the present petitioner that the application for regularisation also covers the disputed structures. This Court on 22/04/2014, directed the GCZMA to decide the matter, including the application for regularisation. 11. On 23/06/2014, the learned Additional Director of Panchayat dismissed the Panchayat Appeal No.83/2012, which was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge in Civil Revision Application No.31/2014. The learned District Judge has dismissed the Revision Application on 14/11/2014, thereby confirming the order of demolition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 12. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 13. It is submitted by Shri Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has no locus 8 WP749/14 standi to intermeddle in the matter as the dispute is essentially between the GCZMA and Village Panchayat on one hand and the petitioner on the other. It is submitted that the second respondent cannot take up the matter against the petitioner as the issue is essentially about the alleged illegal and unauhorised structure, which has to be dealt with by the Village Panchayat and the GCZMA. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; (2013)4 SCC 465 . It is next submitted that the disputed structures are old existing structures and are situated beyond 200 metres of HTL and thus, do not fall within the NDZ and can be regularised. State of Maharashtra and others; (2013)4 SCC 465 . It is next submitted that the disputed structures are old existing structures and are situated beyond 200 metres of HTL and thus, do not fall within the NDZ and can be regularised. It is submitted that as necessary permission could not be obtained prior to construction, the petitioner has approached the Village Panchayat for regularisation, as far back as in the year 2003, which application is not still decided by the GCZMA. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, in the interregnum, it transpired that the file relating to the regularisation application was misplaced and the same has been recently reconstructed and the matter is under consideration of the GCZMA. He, therefore, submits that the demolition notice cannot be executed. Lastly, it is submitted that the Village Panchayat, by a resolution dated 29/09/201, has withdrawn the original show cause notice in view of the fact that the application for regularisation is pending before the GCZMA. It is submitted that this subsequent development is material in as 9 WP749/14 much as the very basis of the action for demolition is lost and thus, the impugned order of demolition needs to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel has produced two undertakings on affidavit dated 05/02/2018 (marked 'X' for identification). By the said undertaking, the petitioner has undertaken to abide by the decision taken by the GCZMA on the application for regularisation, “as may be confirmed in Appeal and/ or Revisional Forums” and the petitioner shall comply with the directions issued by the GCZMA, as confirmed in appeal or other proceedings by competent Tribunals and/ or Courts of law. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the show cause notice has been withdrawn in view of the pendency of the application for regularisation and report of the Enquiry Committee of the GCZMA dated 23/02/2016. 15. Shri. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the disputed structures are situated within NDZ and as such, cannot be regularised in view of the CRZ regulations. It is submitted that apart from the disputed structures being situated in NDZ, the petitioner has also not shown that the petitioner has obtained construction licence from the Village Panchayat. It is submitted that these are two distinct requirements and admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained any construction licence from the Village Panchayat. It is submitted that apart from the disputed structures being situated in NDZ, the petitioner has also not shown that the petitioner has obtained construction licence from the Village Panchayat. It is submitted that these are two distinct requirements and admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained any construction licence from the Village Panchayat. The learned Counsel has taken strong exception to the act of the Village Panchayat in withdrawing the initial show cause notice. It is submitted that the application for regularisation is said to be pending from the year 2003 and as such, cannot be said to be a subsequent development to the passing of the impugned order of demolition. It is submitted that after the order of demotion has been confirmed by the learned Additional Director and the Civil Court and when the matter is pending before this Court, it was not open for the Village Panchayat to have unilaterally withdrawn the show cause notice. It is submitted that the alleged resolution is malafide and is aimed at protecting the illegal and unauthorised structure for reasons best known to the Village Panchayat. It is submitted that the action was initiated on the complaint of the second respondent and he was also allowed to intervene before the learned Additional Director and was also a party in the Revision Application before the learned District Judge. He, therefore, submits that the objection raised to the locus standi of the second respondent, is misplaced. 16. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to get the structures regularised for a period of 15 years now, as the regularisation application was filed as far back as in the year 2003. In so far as the undertakings filed by the petitioner are concerned, it is submitted that it is yet another attempt to gain time. The learned Counsel has objected to the affidavit/undertaking being accepted and being acted upon on the ground that the same is not bonafide. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has made compliance with the order of the GCZMA subject to its confirmation by the Appellate/ Revisional Authorities and it is thus, a clear attempt to gain time and to continue with the illegal and unauthorised structures, in which the petitioner is carrying on commercial activity. 17. Ms. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has made compliance with the order of the GCZMA subject to its confirmation by the Appellate/ Revisional Authorities and it is thus, a clear attempt to gain time and to continue with the illegal and unauthorised structures, in which the petitioner is carrying on commercial activity. 17. Ms. Razak, the learned Government Advocate for the third respondent has submitted that the file pertaining to the application for regularisation, was misplaced and has since been reconstructed. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, from the third respondent submitted that the GCZMA will abide by the orders as may be passed by this Court. She, however, on instructions, submitted that the GCZMA will decide the application for regularisation within a period of three months. 18. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 19. As noticed earlier, the disputed structure comprises of ground+ 2 storied building, along with a swimming pool, which is subject matter of the order of demolition No.2535 dated 15/10/2012. The show cause notice in pursuance of which this order of demolition has been issued is bearing No.1913 dated 15/09/2012, which describes the structure along with its measurement and sketch annexed thereto. Indisputably, it is a structure put to commercial use. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice on 01/10/2012, inter alia, contending that the said structures are in terms of the applicable building regulations, including CRZ regulations. In para 6 of the reply, it was claimed that as necessary permission could not be obtained prior to construction and, therefore, the application for regularisation was filed before the Village Panchayat on 24/09/2003. Thus, in short, according to the petitioner, the structures are situated beyond 200 metres of HTL and are thus, situated beyond NDZ and are in compliance with the existing building regulations, including the CRZ Regulations. However, admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the GCZMA nor a construction licence from the Village Panchayat. Thus, assuming for a moment that the structures are situated beyond NDZ and within 500 metres of HTL, permission of the GCZMA would be necessary. It is not even the case made out that the structures are situated beyond 500 metres of HTL. Thus, assuming for a moment that the structures are situated beyond NDZ and within 500 metres of HTL, permission of the GCZMA would be necessary. It is not even the case made out that the structures are situated beyond 500 metres of HTL. That apart, the permission or a construction licence from the Village Panchayat is an independent requirement under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, which is admittedly not obtained in this case. The sole ground made out for challenging the impugned notice of demolition is that an application for regularisation is pending with GCZMA from the year 2003. Till date, the petitioner has been unable to obtain any favourable orders from the GCZMA let apart from the Village Panchayat for regularisation. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Once the petitioner has filed an application for regularisation, it presupposes that the existing structure is unauthorised and is constructed without the necessary permission from the GCZMA or the Village Panchayat. The question is whether a writ court can come to the aid of such a party, who, in violation of the applicable provisions, has effected the construction. The impugned order of demolition is sought to be challenged on the ground of locus standi of the second respondent and he not being a good realtor. I do not find that the contention can be accepted. The entire action was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent. The second respondent has all along been a party both before the learned Additional Director and before the learned District Judge, not only that in PILWP No.5/2012, this Court in its order dated 29/02/2012, had directed the Panchayat to decide the matter on the basis of the available records, documents and after giving due opportunity not only to the petitioner (the respondent no.3 in the said petition) but also to the second respondent, who was a petitioner in the said petition. Thus, the issue of locus standi of the second respondent, in my considered view, pales into insignificance when considering the challenge by the petitioner, who has allegedly effected the illegal construction without the permission from the Village Panchayat and the GCZMA. 20. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), to my mind is misplaced. The said case turned on its own facts. 20. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), to my mind is misplaced. The said case turned on its own facts. In that case, the respondent no.5 had filed a complaint before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of revoking the caste validity certificate issued to the appellant. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the said application on the ground that it had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate as there is no statutory provision that provides for the same. The respondent no.5 challenged the same before this Court, which remitted the case to the Scrutiny Committee and the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, in these circumstances, it was held that a stranger would have no authority to challenge the caste validity certificate, unless he can be said to be an aggrieved person. In my humble view, the case is clearly distinguishable. 21. It was submitted by Shri Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent is not a good realtor, in as much as, he is also facing action for demolition of certain structures constructed by him, which are said to be unauthorised. In my considered view, this cannot take the case of the petitioner any further. It is trite that two wrongs do not make a right. 22. This takes me to the submission based on the pendency of the application for regularisation. It is a matter of record that the application was filed by the petitioner for regularisation to the Village Panchayat and which has been sent to the GCZMA and is pending from the year 2003. Although there are some letters of the year 2005 produced on record, in which the petitioner had asked the GCZMA to conduct inspection, subsequently, nothing has happened. The fact remains that the petitioner has been unable to obtain the order for regularisation for nearly 15 years now. The learned Counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the structures are within 200 metres of HTL and fall within NDZ and as such, cannot be regularised. The fact remains that the petitioner has been unable to obtain the order for regularisation for nearly 15 years now. The learned Counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the structures are within 200 metres of HTL and fall within NDZ and as such, cannot be regularised. I do not find it necessary to go into this aspect, in as much as, even assuming that the structures are within 200 and 500 metres of the HTL, the permission of the GCZMA was necessary, in addition to the construction licence from the Village Panchayat, none of which are forthcoming in this case. 23. This takes me to the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat on 29/09/2017. At the outset, it is difficult to accept as to how the Village Panchayat can withdraw the show cause notice which had culminated into an order of demolition and has been confirmed by the learned Additional Director of Panchayat as also the learned District Judge. Even assuming that the Village Panchayat can do so, the purported exercise on account of the pendency of the application for regularisation, cannot be countenanced, for the reason that the said application is pending from the year 2003. Thus, when the impugned order of demolition was passed on 15/10/2012, the application was very much pending. Thus, it cannot be said that the resolution dated 29/09/2017 is based on any subsequent events, much less on events, which are material. Lastly, the said resolution also does not pertain to the impugned order of demolition bearing No.2535 dated 15/10/2012. It may be recalled that initially in the year 2008, the Village Panchayat had issued as many as 10 show cause notices, however, the demolition orders were ultimately issued only in respect of 3 out of them, namely Order No.6233, 6234 and 6235. It is a matter of record that out of these, demolition order no.6234 and 6235 have been executed and the concerned structures have been demolished. The record discloses that the demolition order no.6234 was in respect of a toilet, while the demolition order no.6235 was in respect of a garage. Be that as it may, the demolition notice no.6233 read with the corrigendum no.2837 dated 19/08/2011 referred to some new structure in Survey No.242/1. The record discloses that the demolition order no.6234 was in respect of a toilet, while the demolition order no.6235 was in respect of a garage. Be that as it may, the demolition notice no.6233 read with the corrigendum no.2837 dated 19/08/2011 referred to some new structure in Survey No.242/1. The present petition arises out of the demolition order No.2535 dated 15/10/2012 which relates to the structure comprising of ground+ 2 stories along with a swimming pool. The resolution dated 29/09/2017, on which heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner does not refer to the order of demolition No.2535 dated 15/10/2012 or the show cause notice no.1037 dated 21/07/2012 in pursuance of which the impugned order of demolition was passed. Thus, the contention based on resolution dated 29/09/2017, cannot be accepted. 24. This takes me to the last aspect about the affidavit/ undertaking filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondents had strong reservations for this Court accepting or acting upon the said affidavit/ undertaking on the ground that the same is not bonafide. It was contended that the affidavit/ undertaking is cleverly drafted to see that the demolition order is not executed in the near future when the undertaking speaks of the petitioner complying with the order of GCZMA subject to its confirmation in appeal/ revision or any other proceedings. On the contrary, Shri Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 28 of the Contract Act, in order to submit that the petitioner could not have waived his statutory right to challenge the order of the GCZMA in the event it is adverse. 25. At the outset, the reliance on Section 28 of the Contract Act is clearly misplaced. Section 28(a) of the Contract Act applies to the enforcement of a right “under or in respect of any contract” by usual legal proceedings, while Section 28(b) refers to extinguishment of the rights of any party or its discharge from any liability, “under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of the specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights.” There are no rights arising out of or emanating from any contract, in the present case, nor the affidavit/ undertaking can be construed as a contract. In my considered view, the learned Counsel for the second respondent is right in contending that this is yet another attempt to gain time as the period within which the order shall attain finality, cannot be assessed with any amount of precision. The entire action against the petitioner was initiated as far back as in the year 2008. Even the show cause notice in pursuance of which the impugned order of demolition was passed is dated 21/07/2012. The said structures are commercial structures and are constructed without obtaining any permission from GCZMA or the Village Panchayat. For this reason, it is not possible to accept or to act on the basis of the undertakings. 26. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.