JUDGMENT : MANISH PITALE, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive notice. 3. By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 26.07.2021, passed by the Respondent No. 7, whereby Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 has been allowed and an order passed by the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector, has been set aside, further directing the said Respondent to regularize the unauthorized construction of Respondent No. 5. 4. According to the Petitioner, the said Order flies in the face of adverse Orders passed in earlier proceedings by the District Court, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that even if the application for regularization filed by Respondent No. 5, under the provisions of the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2016’) was to be considered on its own merits, it would be obvious that Respondent No. 7 could not have allowed the same. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading up to filing of the present Petition are that, the petitioner raised a grievance that the Respondent nos. 5 and 6, being owners of a plot adjoining the plot of the Petitioner, had undertaken illegal construction in their plot in such a manner that requisite setback was not maintained and there was flagrant violation of relevant Building Regulations and Rules. The Petitioner had been pursuing this grievance from October 2012, when she filed a complaint before Respondent No. 4. It was the grievance of the Petitioner that despite illegalities committed by Respondent nos. 5 and 6, the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat was not taking any action in the matter. 6. According to the Petitioner, after pursuing the matter with various authorities, ultimately on 18.11.2013, the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, issued a notice of demolition against Respondent No. 5. The said Respondent challenged the demolition notice before the Respondent No. 2-Additional Director of Panchayats, by filing an Appeal under the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’). The said Appeal was allowed and the aforesaid notice of demolition dated 18.11.2013 was set aside. The Respondent No. 5 was given an opportunity to get the unauthorized construction regularized under the provisions of the Act of 2016. The said Appeal was allowed and the aforesaid notice of demolition dated 18.11.2013 was set aside. The Respondent No. 5 was given an opportunity to get the unauthorized construction regularized under the provisions of the Act of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed Revision Application under Section 201-B of the Act of 1994 before the District Court. By Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2019, the District Court rendered findings against the Respondent nos. 5 and 6, but found that the Respondents could be given an opportunity to get the unauthorized construction regularized, if permissible, within a period of three months from the date of the Order. It was further specified that if Respondent No. 5 does not avail of the opportunity, or if the unauthorized construction is not regularized by the Competent Authority, the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, shall demolish the unauthorized/illegal construction in accordance with the aforesaid demolition notice dated 18.11.2013. 7. Despite the aforesaid directions given by the District Court and in the absence of any order of regularization, the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat failed to take any action in pursuance of its own demolition notice dated 18.11.2013. In these circumstances, the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition Stamp Number Main no. 1520 of 2020, before this Court, seeking appropriate directions in the matter. By an Order dated 27.01.2021, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that the demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, issued by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat had attained finality and that the Village Panchayat was bound to enforce the demolition notice expeditiously. The Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat made a statement that the Panchayat would enforce the demolition order expeditiously and, in any case, within four weeks from the date of the Order. The Respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed a Review Application before this Court against the said Order, which was also dismissed by Order dated 24.02.2021. 8. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition and the Review Application, the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3786 and 3787 of 2021. On 01.03.2021, the Counsel appearing for the said Respondents before the Supreme Court, made a statement that an application had been filed for regularization of the structure and, on that basis, he sought time of two weeks. 5 and 6 filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3786 and 3787 of 2021. On 01.03.2021, the Counsel appearing for the said Respondents before the Supreme Court, made a statement that an application had been filed for regularization of the structure and, on that basis, he sought time of two weeks. The Supreme Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and made it clear that if the structure was not regularized within that period, the Special Leave Petitions would stand dismissed. 9. The application for regularization of the said unauthorized/illegal structure filed by Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Act of 2016, came up for consideration before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector. A report was called from the Deputy Town Planner in that regard, which came to be submitted on 16.03.2021. In the report, the Deputy Town Planner stated that as per the application and the plan submitted by Respondent No. 5, seeking regularization of the unauthorized structure, the area of the structure proposed for regularization was 459.94 square meters. The Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector took into consideration the report of the Deputy Town Planner and by applying the provisions of the Act of 2016, found that the said structure exceeded the permissible limit of built-up area which could be regularized, even under the provisions of the said Act of 2016. Accordingly, the application was rejected. It is relevant that Respondent nos. 5 did not join the Petitioner as a party in the said application for regularization moved before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector. 10. On 26.03.2021, when the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions were listed before the Supreme Court, the Counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 5 and 6, on instructions, stated that the said Respondents had taken recourse to the remedy of Appeal against the aforesaid order rejecting the request for regularization and, on that basis, permission was sought to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. 11. Thereafter, the Appeal filed by Respondent nos. 5 and 6 before the Respondent No. 7 came up for consideration. The Petitioner applied for intervention in the said Appeal. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2021, the Respondent No. 7 allowed the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 5. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. 11. Thereafter, the Appeal filed by Respondent nos. 5 and 6 before the Respondent No. 7 came up for consideration. The Petitioner applied for intervention in the said Appeal. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2021, the Respondent No. 7 allowed the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 5. The intervention application of the Petitioner was rejected by holding that she had no locus standi to file the application, because property was already partitioned as per family Deed of Partition and that the Respondent No. 5 had undertaken the construction in his property. Insofar as the merits of the matter were concerned, the Respondent No. 7 held that as per the plan placed on record with the application for regularization, the total built-up area sought to be regularized was 242 square meters and since the structure was being used for residential-cum-commercial purpose, it was within the limit of 250 meters specified under the Act of 2016. On this basis, it was held that the structure deserved to be regularized. It is against the said Order that the present Petition has been filed. While issuing notice in this Petition, on 02.02.2022, this Court made it clear that steps taken in furtherance of the impugned Order shall not inure to the benefit of Respondent nos. 5 and 6. 12. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, took this Court through the history of the litigation between the parties. It was emphasized that the Petitioner had been running from pillar to post since the year 2012, highlighting the blatantly illegal manner in which the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 had undertaken illegal construction in their plot. It was emphasized that the failure on the part of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 to leave requisite setback while making the construction, was brought to the notice of the authorities repeatedly and yet, no action was taken. It was submitted that eventually, the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, on 18.11.2013, issued the demolition notice, which through the process of appeal and revision attained finality as per the Order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the District Court. When no action was being taken by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, despite its own demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, having attained finality, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the aforesaid Writ Petition. When no action was being taken by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, despite its own demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, having attained finality, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the aforesaid Writ Petition. In the said Writ Petition, the finality of the Order was noted and the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat undertook that the said illegal construction would be demolished within four weeks. Despite the said Order of this Court attaining finality, by dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, even today, the illegal construction is very much in existence. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the attempt on the part of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 to get the illegal construction treated as unauthorized and then seeking regularization of the same under the Act of 2016, met with failure before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector. The said Order was based on the report of the expert i.e. Deputy Town Planner. The Respondent No. 5 deliberately did not add the Petitioner as party in the said application for regularization. In the Appeal filed before Respondent No. 7, the Petitioner had indeed applied for intervention, but the same was wrongly dismissed by the Respondent No. 7 in the impugned Order. 13. It was highlighted that the view taken on merits by Respondent No. 7 is wholly unsustainable, even on a bare reading of the application for regularization moved on behalf of Respondent nos. 5 and 6. As per the said application itself, the structure was claimed to be residential and by application of the relevant provisions of the Act of 2016, regularization of built-up area of more than 200 square meters in a residential structure, could not be permitted. As per the application of the Respondent No. 5, the area proposed to be regularized was 242 square meters. Therefore, the impugned Order was clearly unsustainable. This was without prejudice to the reliance being placed by the Petitioner on the report of the Deputy Town Planner, upon which the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector had relied. It was submitted that the Respondent No. 7 completely misdirected itself while passing the impugned Order. The said order was clearly in the face of orders passed by the District Court, this Court and the Supreme Court confirming the notice of demolition issued by Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat. It was submitted that the Respondent No. 7 completely misdirected itself while passing the impugned Order. The said order was clearly in the face of orders passed by the District Court, this Court and the Supreme Court confirming the notice of demolition issued by Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat. Even applying the provisions of the Act of 2016, the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 5 could not have been allowed. On this basis, it was submitted that the Writ Petition deserved to be allowed. 14. Mr. Metlock D' Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent nos. 5 and 6, submitted that the earlier round of litigation up to the Supreme Court was irrelevant for the application for regularization moved by the said Respondents before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector. It was submitted that a perusal of the provisions of the Act of 2016, would show that an unauthorized construction could be regularized in terms of the provisions of the said Act. It was submitted that the structure in question was a residential-cum-commercial structure and that, therefore, the Respondent No. 7 was justified in allowing the Appeal. It was further submitted that the demolition notice issued by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat was wholly irrelevant for consideration of the prayer for regularization made on behalf of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 under the provisions of the Act of 2016. It was further submitted that this Court ought not to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the well reasoned order of Respondent No. 7. It was submitted that there were disputed questions of facts, which could not be gone into in this Petition before this Court and that, therefore, the present Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fatima W/o Caetano Joao vs. Village Panchayat of Merces and Another, 2001 (1) Mh. L.J. 836. 15. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. The documents on record show that the Petitioner has been pursuing her grievance regarding construction undertaken by the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 from the year 2012 and that after having pursued the matter before various authorities, demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, issued against Respondent nos. 5 and 6 treating the construction as illegal had attained finality. The documents on record show that the Petitioner has been pursuing her grievance regarding construction undertaken by the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 from the year 2012 and that after having pursued the matter before various authorities, demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, issued against Respondent nos. 5 and 6 treating the construction as illegal had attained finality. This Court has perused the documents from the stage when the initial complaint was filed by the Petitioner raising her grievance in the year 2012, till the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by Respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 26.03.2021. It is evident from the demolition notice dated 18.11.2013, issued by Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, that the grievance of the Petitioner was accepted and the construction undertaken by Respondent nos. 5 and 6, without leaving requisite set back was treated as illegal construction. 16. Although the Respondent No. 2-Additional Director interfered with the said notice, the findings rendered by the said respondent did not find favour with the District Court in the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 201-B of the Act of 1994. It was categorically held by the District Court in its Order dated 10.04.2019, as follows: “ORDER: (A) The Civil Revision Application is allowed. (B) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the Ld. Addl. Director of Panchayats-III, Margao in Panchayat Appeal No. MAR-I/78/2013 is modified in the following terms: (i) The Respondent No. 2 is given an opportunity to get his unauthorized construction regularized within a period of 3 (three) months from today, if such regularization is permissible. (ii) In case the Respondent No. 2 does not avail the opportunity within the said period or the unauthorized construction is not regularized by the competent authority, the Respondent No. 1/Village Panchayat of Betalbatim shall demolish the unauthorized/illegal construction in accordance with the demolition order/notice dated 18.11.2013. Pronounced in the Open Court.” 17. The record shows that despite the said Order and the admitted position that the Respondent No. 5 failed to obtain any order of regularization in respect of the said construction, the notice of demolition dated 18.11.2013, was not being acted upon. In this situation, the Petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition before this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: “8. In this situation, the Petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition before this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: “8. This means that, the demolition notice dated 18.11.2013 has attained finality and, in terms of the order of the learned District Judge, the Panchayat was duty bound to enforce the same as expeditiously as possible. 9. Today, Mr. Byron Rodrigues, the learned Counsel for the Panchayat states that the Panchayat will enforce the demolition order dated 18.11.2013 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within 4 weeks from today. This statement is accepted and the Panchayat is directed to act accordingly. If the Panchayat requires any assistance from the State Authorities for effecting the demolition, the State Authorities to extend such assistance.” 18. The respondent nos.5 and 6 filed review application before this Court, which was also dismissed on 24.02.2021. As noted above, the said Orders were challenged before the Supreme Court but, eventually, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. In the interregnum, the Respondent No. 5 applied for regularization of the unauthorized structure under the provisions of the Act of 2016, before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector. The said Respondent called for a report from the Deputy Town Planner in that regard. By report dated 16.03.2021, the Deputy Town Planner categorically submitted that the built-up area of the structure proposed for regularization was 459.94 square meters. This was based on the application and the accompanying plan submitted for regularization by Respondent No. 5. It is significant that in the application filed by Respondent No. 5 for regularization, it was categorically stated in the description of the unauthorized structure that the type of structure was residential. The plan submitted along with the application gave the area statement, wherein the Respondent No. 5 himself claimed that the built-up area for regularization was 242 square meters. 19. In this application, the Respondent No. 5 did not add the Petitioner as a party. This was despite the fact that it was at the behest of the Petitioner, who was pursuing the matter from the year 2012, that the notice for demolition was issued by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, as far back on 18.11.2013 and the same attained finality by dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 26.03.2021. This was despite the fact that it was at the behest of the Petitioner, who was pursuing the matter from the year 2012, that the notice for demolition was issued by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, as far back on 18.11.2013 and the same attained finality by dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 26.03.2021. Whether an application for regularization of the very structure could be filed under the provisions of the Act of 2016, in the face of confirmation of the notice of demolition upto the Supreme Court, is also a question that arises in the present Petition. In this regard, definition of the expression “unauthorized construction” specified in Section 2(h) of the Act of 2016, becomes relevant. It states that 'unauthorized construction' means any construction carried out before 28.02.2014 without obtaining sanad, permission/license, no objection certificate or any other document from the Competent Authorities under the relevant Acts. In the present case, the grievance of the Petitioner throughout was that such construction was wholly illegal, as requisite set backs were not ensured by Respondent nos. 5 and 6, while undertaking the construction. This brings into focus the question as to whether the construction alleged to be illegal and found to be so by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat itself, in respect of which demolition notice dated 18.11.2013 was issued by the said Respondent, could be regularized under the provisions of the Act of 2016. 20. This Court could have gone into the said question pertaining to “illegal construction” and “unauthorized construction” but, in the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Petition can be decided on facts, even if it is assumed that the Act of 2016 was indeed available for seeking regularization of the very construction of Respondent nos. 5 and 6. 21. As noted above, the Respondent No. 5 himself specifically stated in the application for regularization, moved before the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector under the provisions of the Act of 2016, that the type of structure was “residential.” This assumes great significance in the present case. As noted earlier, the Deputy Town Planner, being an expert in the field, specifically opined that the area of the built-up structure proposed for regularization was 459.94 square meters. As noted earlier, the Deputy Town Planner, being an expert in the field, specifically opined that the area of the built-up structure proposed for regularization was 459.94 square meters. Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector proceeded on the basis of the said report of Deputy Town Planner, who undoubtedly is an expert in the said field concerning application of the statutory provisions of the Act of 2016. In this context, Section 3(3) and (4) of the said Act of 2016, are relevant which read as follows: “Regularisation of unauthorized construction: (1)......... (2)......... (3) The authorised officer shall scrutinise the application received under sub-section (1) and after holding an enquiry, as he deems fit and conducting site inspection thereof and subject to payment by the applicant of charges, taxes, fees and penalty as determined by the authorised officer as per schedule II hereto, pass an order of regularisation of such unauthorized construction. (4) The built-up area of the unauthorized construction which is proposed to be regularised shall not exceed: (i) 200 square meters in case such construction is meant for personal residence of the applicant. (ii) 100 square meters in case such construction is meant for commercial purpose of the applicant. (iii) 250 square meters in case such construction is meant for residential cum commercial purpose of the applicant. (iv) 400 square meters in case such construction is meant for institutional purpose.” 22. The Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector accepted the report of the expert i.e. Deputy Town Planner and proceeded on the basis that the area of the built-up structure proposed for regularization was 459.94 square meters. It was found that since the type of structure was residential, it could not have exceeded 200 square meters and accordingly, the application for regularization was rejected. 23. In the impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 7, the Order of the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector has been reversed on the ground that as per the plan submitted by Respondent No. 5, along with the application for regularization, the built-up area of the structure proposed for regularization was 242 square meters. It was then observed that as the structure is to be used for residential cum commercial purpose, under Section 3(4) of the Act of 2016, quoted above, since the limit prescribed for regularization of a structure meant for residential-cum-commercial purpose is 250 square meters, the application deserved to be allowed. 24. It was then observed that as the structure is to be used for residential cum commercial purpose, under Section 3(4) of the Act of 2016, quoted above, since the limit prescribed for regularization of a structure meant for residential-cum-commercial purpose is 250 square meters, the application deserved to be allowed. 24. The aforesaid finding on facts rendered by the Respondent No. 7 is perverse, simply for the reason that in the application submitted by Respondent No. 5 for regularization, it is clearly stated that the structure is residential. There was no reason for the Respondent No. 7 to proceed on the basis that the structure was residential-cum-commercial. This was in the teeth of the very contents of the application for regularization filed by Respondent No. 5. There was no reason stated in the impugned Order as to why the report of the expert i.e. Deputy Town Planner, upon which the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector had placed reliance, was being ignored. Therefore, it is found that even applying the provisions of the Act of 2016, the findings rendered by the Respondent No. 7 in the impugned Order are perverse and against the very documents placed on record by Respondent No. 5, while seeking regularization of the structure. The aforesaid conclusion is further reinforced by the occupancy certificate granted by the Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat, in pursuance of the impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 7, wherein it is stated that construction of “residential” structure admeasuring 242 square meters had been undertaken. Thus, there was no scope for proceeding on the basis that the structure was anything other than residential. 25. In this backdrop, reliance placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fatima W/o Caetano Joao vs. Village Panchayat of Merces and Another (supra), is clearly misplaced. The said judgment pertains to the scope of writ jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court when a mandamus is sought for demolition on the ground that the construction in question is illegal. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, making a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order passed by Respondent No. 7. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, making a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order passed by Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner has been successful in demonstrating before this Court that the Respondent No. 7 exercised its jurisdiction in a wholly illegal manner, based on an erroneous approach, leading to perverse findings. In such a situation, the jurisdiction of this Court could certainly be invoked. 26. In the present case, the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have blatantly violated the provisions of law. They could successfully evade consequences of the demolition notice issued by Respondent No. 1-Village Panchayat as far back as on 18.11.2013. Despite confirmation of the said demolition notice by dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court on 26.03.2021, no action was taken by the concerned authorities. The Petitioner has been running from pillar to post for all these years and the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been blatantly carrying on unauthorized construction and adding to it during the said period of time. It is found that even if the provisions of the Act of 2016, can be said to be available to the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 for seeking regularization of the said unauthorized structure, on merits and by applying the provisions of the said Act, no such regularization could have been granted. The Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector had correctly appreciated the material on record, including the application form as well as the plan submitted by the Respondent No. 5 himself. The report of the expert i.e. Deputy Town Planner, was correctly taken into consideration while rejecting the application for regularization. Yet, the Respondent No. 7 proceeded in a brazen manner to allow the Appeal based on perverse findings rendered against the very contents of the application for regularization and the plan submitted therewith by the Respondent No. 5. 27. In view of the above, the Petitioner has made out a case for interference in the impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 7. 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 7, is quashed and set aside and the Order passed by the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector, rejecting the application for regularization filed by Respondent No. 5, is upheld. 29. 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 7, is quashed and set aside and the Order passed by the Respondent No. 8-Deputy Collector, rejecting the application for regularization filed by Respondent No. 5, is upheld. 29. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.