JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners claiming to be residents of Marcaim, Ponda Goa, object to, what they describe as the construction of a new crematorium in the property surveyed under No. 115/12, Ward No. 5, Adanwada, Marcaim Goa (the said property). 4. Even before notices could be served on the Zilla Panchayat and Navadurga Devasthan and even before respondent Nos. 11 to 39 applied for and were impleaded as the respondents in this petition, this Court on 15.12.2021, based on the petitioners' case that a "new crematorium" was being constructed at a distance of hardly two meters from petitioner no. 1's house or five meters from an Anganwadi, stayed further construction and even restrained further cremation in the suit property. 5. On 18.01.2022, Misc. Civil Application No. 169 of 2022 (Filing No.) was taken out by almost 29 residents from the locality seeking inter alia their impleadment and the vacation of the interim order dated 15.12.2021. These residents contended that this was not at all a case of construction of a new crematorium as was falsely alleged and that this crematorium was in existence for past at least 60 years. These residents pointed out that it is petitioner No. 1 who had, a few years ago, without obtaining permission from any statutory authorities, constructed his house next to the crematorium. The residents pointed out that similar was the position of remaining petitioners who claimed to have purchased the plots around the said property with full knowledge about the existence of the crematorium. The residents also pointed out to the NOC issued by the Devasthan and resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 02.12.2021 stating that the crematorium existed in the said property before any residential houses were constructed and further, the cremation was being done since a long time before the construction of structures in the surrounding area. The residents also relied upon a report of the Civil Engineer/Chartered Valuer who opined that this was an old existing crematorium that was simply being renovated and maintained by the Zilla Panchayat or by the funds given by the Zilla Panchayat under the relevant Government schemes made by the Government. The residents also relied upon a report of the Civil Engineer/Chartered Valuer who opined that this was an old existing crematorium that was simply being renovated and maintained by the Zilla Panchayat or by the funds given by the Zilla Panchayat under the relevant Government schemes made by the Government. The residents pointed out that this engineer had also opined that the residential house of petitioner No. 1 near the said property is of recent origin and the same is not even reflected in any survey plan or other official records. The residents also relied upon several photographs in support of their version. 6. Since the residents were pressing for the vacation of the interim relief and the petitioners were pressing for continuance thereof, we felt that it would be in the interest of all concerned if the petition is itself taken up for final disposal having regard to the controversy that could brook no unnecessary delay. 7. Mrs. Agni learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that a new crematorium was being set up in the said property in defiance of the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008, and the Goa Public Health Act, 1985. She submitted that even otherwise no crematorium can be permitted in the residential areas or the areas close to school and Anganwadi. She referred to the nuisance and health hazards that would arise if a crematorium is permitted on the said property. 8. Mrs. Agni referred to regulation 9.2 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 to submit that a platform burning of the funeral pyre in a crematorium has to be at a distance of more than 30 meters from the settlement area and pointed out that this mandatory regulation has been observed only in the breach. She pointed out that there is no registration or license for the crematorium and consequently there is a breach of provisions contained in Sections 90, 97, and 98 of the Panchayat Raj Act. She pointed out that there is no conversion obtained under the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code. 9. Mrs. Agni submitted that the said property belongs to Navadurga Devasthan (respondent No. 7) and there was no NOC from the said Devasthan to use the said property as a crematorium. She pointed out that there is no conversion obtained under the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code. 9. Mrs. Agni submitted that the said property belongs to Navadurga Devasthan (respondent No. 7) and there was no NOC from the said Devasthan to use the said property as a crematorium. She submitted that there was a crematorium about 600 meters away from the said property in Survey No. 69/1 that was and could be used for the cremation of demised residents from Ward Nos. 4 and 5 of Marcaim Village. She submitted that even in terms of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 no such crematorium could be set up in residential localities and in fact there was a duty cast on the Health Officer to abate nuisance. 10. Based upon the aforesaid contentions, Mrs. Agni urged that the rule in this petition may be made absolute and suitable directions be issued to the Zilla Panchayat to refrain from setting up a crematorium in the said property which is a settlement area. 11. Mr. P. Wagle learned counsel for Navadurga Devasthan (respondent No. 7) based on instructions admitted that the said property was used for burning of dead bodies but submitted that there was another crematorium, inter alia in the property surveyed under No. 69/1, and the same could as well be used as a crematorium. To the pointed query as to whether the said property had an existing crematorium, Mr. Wagle was non-committal and submitted that the Devasthan has large properties and it was not possible to check out all the properties. However, he admitted that the said property was used for the cremation of dead bodies. 12. The learned Advocate General submitted that there are schemes formulated by the Government for renovation and maintenance of crematoria. Some of such schemes are administered through Zilla Panchayat. He submitted that the renovation and maintenance works were undertaken through these Zilla Panchayat funds under the Government schemes. 13. Mr. Arjun Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11 to 39 reiterated what was set out in the Misc. Civil Application No. 169 of 2022 (Filing No.). He admitted that there was another crematorium about 600 meters away in the property surveyed under No. 69/1 but went on to submit that the petitioners and certain other members belonging to the petitioners' community were restraining respondents Nos. 11 to 39 reiterated what was set out in the Misc. Civil Application No. 169 of 2022 (Filing No.). He admitted that there was another crematorium about 600 meters away in the property surveyed under No. 69/1 but went on to submit that the petitioners and certain other members belonging to the petitioners' community were restraining respondents Nos. 11 to 39 and other members belonging to the Kharvi community from making use of other crematoria if any need arose. He pointed out that the crematorium in the said property i.e. Survey No. 115/12 was existing for the past 60 years and this is the only crematorium where the members of the Kharvi community could cremate without any obstruction from any persons or authorities. He submitted that only petitioner No. 1 has recently constructed his house close to the said property without obtaining any permissions from the authorities and other petitioners have merely purchased plots around the said property. He submitted that the petitioners, taking advantage of renovation and maintenance works approached this Court with a patently false case and secured interim relief. He, therefore, submits that this petition may be dismissed and the interim order be vacated at the earliest. 14. Mrs. Agni by way of rejoinder reiterated the case pleaded in the petition. She submitted that the existence of Anganwadi/school militates against the said property being used as a crematorium for the last several years. She submitted that since according to the petitioners, there was no crematorium in the said property, there was no question of impleading any alleged affected parties to this petition. She submitted that petitioner No. 1 constructed his house almost 26 years ago and has been regularly paying house tax. To the query from the Court as to whether petitioner No. 1 has any permission from any authorities, Mrs. Agni expressed inability to answer this but submitted that such an issue was quite irrelevant. She submitted that having a crematorium almost touching an Anganwadi was neither permissible nor in the public interest. She, therefore, urged that the rule may be made absolute in this petition. 15. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 16. According to us, the petition as instituted, at the best, raises disputed questions of fact that cannot ordinarily be gone into in exercise of our summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She, therefore, urged that the rule may be made absolute in this petition. 15. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 16. According to us, the petition as instituted, at the best, raises disputed questions of fact that cannot ordinarily be gone into in exercise of our summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition, at the worst, indicates that the Petitioners have approached this Court with a patently false case that some new crematorium was being constructed when in reality, this was a case of repairs and renovation of an existing crematorium. However, the petitioners, have not only invoked this extra-ordinary jurisdiction but insisted that the matter should be resolved in these proceedings without relegating the parties to some other proceedings. 17. The record also bears out that practically all the renovation/maintenance works concerning the crematorium in the said property are complete. The photographs placed on record by both the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 11 to 39 bear this out. The crematorium platforms are complete, the tiling work is complete and there is also a six meters high tin sheet compound that enclose the crematorium so that the cremation activities are not readily visible to those outside. The petition, it appears, was instituted at a quite belated stage after completion of most of the works based almost exclusively on the allegation that a "new crematorium" was for the first time being set up by the Zilla Panchayat in breach of the provisions of the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008 and 2010 Regulations; the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Goa Public Health Act, 1985. Based on this primary contention, the petitioners also secured interim relief from this Court restraining further construction and use of the said property for cremation. 18. Now at least prima facie there is overwhelming material on record that establishes that the petitioners were not quite candid with this Court when they contended that a "new crematorium" was being set up in the said property. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 have filed affidavits pointing out how this crematorium existed since last about 60 years. 18. Now at least prima facie there is overwhelming material on record that establishes that the petitioners were not quite candid with this Court when they contended that a "new crematorium" was being set up in the said property. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 have filed affidavits pointing out how this crematorium existed since last about 60 years. They have also placed on record a report prepared by J.S. Oulkar, Civil Engineer & Chartered Valuer, who has upon visiting the site reported how in his opinion, only an existing crematorium was being repaired, renovated, and maintained. This Civil Engineer & Chartered Valuer has also commented that the house constructed by petitioner No. 1 close to the said property is of recent origin and not even reflected in the survey plan issued by the Survey Department. 19. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 have also produced on record a resolution of the panchayat passed in its meeting dated 21.02.2022 in which the Village Panchayat, as a body unanimously noted that the crematorium was an existing one and that it existed even before any residential houses could come around it. The panchayat however took note of the pendency of the present petition and resolved that the registration can be granted following prescribed procedure and depending upon the fate of the present writ petition that is sub judice. 20. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 have also produced several death certificates and further stated on oath that all these persons in the recent past were cremated in the existing crematorium in the said property. They have stated on oath that the existing crematorium was being or rather has been repaired, renovated by the construction of a new crematorium shed and affixing pavers surrounding such shed. They have also stated that a tin sheet compound was put up so that the cremation activities are not readily visible to those outside. They pointed out that after all these works were completed, the petitioners, by falsely alleging that a "new crematorium" was being put up secured interim relief. 21. Mr. Wagle, learned counsel for the Navadurga Devasthan also did not dispute that the said property was used for cremation. They pointed out that after all these works were completed, the petitioners, by falsely alleging that a "new crematorium" was being put up secured interim relief. 21. Mr. Wagle, learned counsel for the Navadurga Devasthan also did not dispute that the said property was used for cremation. Despite his non-commitment on the issue of whether there was an existing crematorium in the said property, it is apparent that if for the last several years the said property was used for cremation activities without any objection from Devasthan, the case of respondent Nos. 11 to 39 deserves to be accepted at least based on the material placed on record at the prima facie stage. 22. Petitioner No. 1 indeed has a house very close to the said property and the crematorium therein. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 state that the house is recently constructed. Even petitioner No. 1 states that the house was constructed about 26 years ago and for which petitioner No. 1 pays house tax to the panchayat. However, even assuming that the house was constructed 26 years ago surely, the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act or planning laws were then extended to this area and the petitioners despite the challenge in the affidavit in reply have not bothered to place on record any such permissions or clearance, if any. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite pointed query from Court, simply submitted that such an issue ought not to arise in the present petition. She also submitted that whatever documents have been available are placed on record. 23. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 do not claim to have their structures around the said property but claim to have purchased plots around the said property. Again, there is no material produced about how such plots were developed and laid out and whether any permissions were at all obtained from the statutory authorities for the same. 24. All this leads to the prima facie inference that the petitioners have attempted to take undue advantage of the fact that repairs and renovations were going on to the existing crematorium and styling these repairs and renovations as construction of a "new crematorium", the petitioners approached this Court even after most of the activities were complete and secured interim relief. All this leads to the prima facie inference that the petitioners have attempted to take undue advantage of the fact that repairs and renovations were going on to the existing crematorium and styling these repairs and renovations as construction of a "new crematorium", the petitioners approached this Court even after most of the activities were complete and secured interim relief. The petitioners on the specious plea that no parties are likely to be affected did not even choose to implead any other respondents from Ward No. 5 in a representative capacity or otherwise as parties to this petition. 25. Mrs. Agni however pointed out that the communication dated 14.07.2021 addressed by Zilla Panchayat to the Sarpanch speaks about the tender for construction of crematorium shed and surrounding pavers near GPS Adanwada in V.P. Marcaim in Veling-Priol Constituency. This document is to be found on page 74 of the paper book. Based upon this, she submitted that since this communication refers to the construction of a crematorium shed, it is clear that this is a case of construction of a "new crematorium" near GPS Adanwada. 26. According to us, this is not at all the correct reading of the communication dated 14.07.2021. In the first place, the communication speaks about the construction of the crematorium shed and the laying of pavers surrounding the same. This is not some as construction of an entirely new crematorium in a place where there existed no crematorium. Secondly, this communication is in the context of tenders floated by Zilla Panchayat possibly under the Government schemes. Based on this communication, the petitioners cannot contend that the Zilla Panchayat, for the first time, is constructing a "new crematorium" in the said property. Rather even this communication supports the case of the respondent Nos. 11 to 39 that the existing crematorium was being renovated by providing a crematorium shed and surrounding pavers. Even the photographs produced on record endorse this very position. 27. The legal provisions referred to by Mrs. Agni on behalf of the petitioners apply to the setting up of a new crematorium. The petitioners are aware of this position and therefore, attempted to project a case, which, according to us, was at least prima facie a false case that a new crematorium was being set up. 27. The legal provisions referred to by Mrs. Agni on behalf of the petitioners apply to the setting up of a new crematorium. The petitioners are aware of this position and therefore, attempted to project a case, which, according to us, was at least prima facie a false case that a new crematorium was being set up. The material on record, at least prima facie suggests that the crematorium was existing much before petitioner No. 1 put up his house close to the same. Since no permissions or clearances have been produced by petitioner No. 1 at least prima facie, it cannot be said that the construction put up by petitioner No. 1 is legal or authorized. Merely because some house tax being paid by petitioner No. 1 does not impart any legality to the structure. These are only prima facie findings to demonstrate that this petition was at least prima facie piloted on a false premise. 28. The same is the position with remaining petitioners who claim to have purchased plots. These two petitioners have also not placed on a record when such plots were purchased by them and whether authorities have permitted sub-division or laying of such plots. The petitioners having constructed their structures/purchased plots much later cannot now complain about the crematorium that prima facie existed at the site, by styling the works as setting up of a "new crematorium" in the said property. 29. The parties admit that there is another crematorium about 600 meters away. However, there is a serious dispute as to whether members of the Kharvi community are permitted to cremate at that site. Respondent Nos. 11 to 39 state that even the petitioners obstruct the members of this community from utilizing the said crematorium. The said respondents have therefore pleaded that last almost six decades they have been using the existing crematorium in the said property. They have pointed out that there was no opposition from anyone including the petitioners and now only because the repairs and maintenance were carried out, the petitioners for the first time falsely alleged that a new crematorium was set up and secured interim relief. 30. The issue of Anganwadi being set up virtually 5 to 60 meters away from the existing crematorium is however quite a disturbing issue. 30. The issue of Anganwadi being set up virtually 5 to 60 meters away from the existing crematorium is however quite a disturbing issue. There is no dispute that this Anganwadi was set up in the year 2018 through the funds received from Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which has an industrial unit in Madkai Industrial Estate. This is clear from the NOC dated 27.08.2018 issued by the Panchayat. 31. The Anganwadi appears to have been constructed as a part of the CSR activities of the said industrial unit. The Anganwadi is also in a shed no doubt close to the existing crematorium. Mrs. Agni contends that if there was indeed an existing crematorium then the panchayat would not have permitted an Anganwadi. The unanimous resolution of the Village Panchayat however acknowledges the existence of the crematorium. Therefore, this submission of Mrs. Agni cannot be accepted. 32. Nevertheless, we are quite concerned about there being an Anganwadi so close to the existing crematorium. Therefore, we called upon the learned Advocate General to offer his comments. The learned Advocate General also stated that the Collector of South Goa i.e. respondent No. 9 will look into this issue. Although in this petition, we are not concerned with the issue of Anganwadi, we think that we cannot ignore this issue either. 33. Therefore, we also direct the Collector of South Goa, to look into this issue and if he finds that the location of this small Anganwadi so close to the existing crematorium is hazardous to the interest of the small children, then, the Collector should take suitable steps to, if necessary relocate this Anganwadi to better premises. At least prima facie we think that locating an Anganwadi so close to a crematorium will not be conducive to the little children at the Anganwadi. The Collector will have to visit the place and see whether Anganwadi is being operated at the said spot or not. The Zilla Panchayat should also consider extending appropriate financial assistance for relocation if the same is found to be necessary. 34. Resultantly, we dismiss this petition primarily on the ground that it involves the disputed questions of fact. The Collector will have to visit the place and see whether Anganwadi is being operated at the said spot or not. The Zilla Panchayat should also consider extending appropriate financial assistance for relocation if the same is found to be necessary. 34. Resultantly, we dismiss this petition primarily on the ground that it involves the disputed questions of fact. We also dismiss this petition on the ground that prima facie material on record does indicate that an existing crematorium was only repaired and renovated and this was not a case of construction of some entirely a new crematorium by the Zilla Panchayat as was, at least prima facie falsely represented by the petitioners. The conduct of the petitioners in this case also, according to us, disentitle them from any relief in our extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. For these reasons, we also think that the petitioners must pay costs, that can be utilized, if necessary for the relocation of the Anganwadi. 35. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition with costs which are quantified at Rs.25,000/-. This amount will have to be deposited by the petitioners with the Collector of South Goa within four weeks from today and a report of compliance filed in this Court within the same period or at the most a week thereafter. The Collector in terms of our directions should look into the issue of Anganwadi and its relocation. The Collector is authorized to expend this amount for relocation, should such necessity arise. The Zilla Panchayat and the Village Panchayat should also consider this issue of relocation of Anganwadi, if necessary. In such matters, the welfare of the children is paramount and the authorities must focus on that aspect. 36. The dismissal of this petition will however not come in the way of any parties including the petitioners and respondent Nos. 11 to 39 from seeking adjudication before the competent Court that can elaborately go into the disputed questions of fact that arise in the context of private rights of the parties. The observations made by us in this order are essentially prima facie based on the material placed on record by the parties. 11 to 39 from seeking adjudication before the competent Court that can elaborately go into the disputed questions of fact that arise in the context of private rights of the parties. The observations made by us in this order are essentially prima facie based on the material placed on record by the parties. These observations were necessary because we had to decide whether any case was made out to restrain the use of a crematorium and deprive the residents of the locality, its use based upon a prima facie false case the Zilla Panchayat was constructing a new crematorium in the said property. 37. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- as aforesaid. The interim order granted by us in this petition on 15.12.2021 is hereby vacated. The rule is discharged. 38. The Misc. Civil Application No. 169 of 2022 (Filing No.) does not survive with the disposal of the writ petition and is accordingly disposed of. In any case, the relief applied for in such application now stands granted with the vacation of the ad-interim order dated 15.12.2021.