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 complain about the action of Mapusa Municipal Council (MMC) attempting to develop or otherwise interfere with the property bearing P.T. Sheet No. 115 of Chalta No. 53 of Mapusa city admeasuring 1572 square meters (the said property) without the authority of law. 4. The petitioners have placed on record an order made by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka on 16.08.2019 restraining the legal representatives of their landlord late Purushottam Vishram Prabhu Walaulikar from attempting to dispossess the petitioners who claim to be agricultural tenants of the said property. Mr. Talaulikar pointed out that this order is still in force and the same is important because the respondent Nos. 9 to 23 in this petition claim to have acquired an interest in the suit property through the said Walaulikar. He pointed out that these respondents claim to have purchased certain plots from Walaulikar and further, these respondents claim that the said property is an “open space” in terms of plans approved by the Municipal Authorities. Mr. Talaulikar also points out that the MMC, based upon some NOCs from these respondents or the offer to gift the said property to MMC has embarked upon the activities of the development of the said property. Mr. Talaulikar submits that the restraint order will apply not only to Walaulikar but also to the persons like the respondents who claim to have acquired interest from the said Walaulikar like the private respondents. 5. On 22.3.2016, the MMC resolved to develop the said property by using municipal funds. The petitioners questioned this resolution before the Director of Urban Development by taking up proceedings under Sections 293 and 296 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. The Director, by a detailed order dated 17.06.2019 interfered with the MMC resolution dated 22.03.2016 and directed the MMC to suspend the proposal for the development of the said property. The petitioners questioned this resolution before the Director of Urban Development by taking up proceedings under Sections 293 and 296 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. The Director, by a detailed order dated 17.06.2019 interfered with the MMC resolution dated 22.03.2016 and directed the MMC to suspend the proposal for the development of the said property. The Director also made it clear that in case the MMC proposes to take up the work of development of the said open space, they would exercise due diligence and either enter into an agreement/obtain a gift deed from the competent landowner who has proper documentation in support of title and that this procedure should be followed in case of any future development while incurring an expenditure of public monies in respect of the private lands within Municipal jurisdiction. 6. Admittedly, the MMC has not challenged the Director's order dated 17.06.2019, and the same stands. The Director has reasoned that the Municipality should not venture into any activities by expending public funds without any clear title to such properties or where the properties are involved in litigation. The Director has reasoned that the MMC cannot construct on private properties without the consent of the lawful owners or the parties who are competent to give such consent. The Director also reasoned that the expenditure of public money on a disputed property will mean that the expenditure might be wasted if ultimately it is found that the parties who gave NOC to the Council had no authority to do so. 7. The petitioners submit that the private respondents who claim to have acquired title from Walaulikar have not produced any sale-deeds or other title documents in support of their claim. Instead, all these parties formed a Cooperative society under the name of Vidyanagar Colony Cooperative Housing Maintenance Society that was registered in the office of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa Goa, bearing registration Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/50b/(d)/Goa. The private respondents, through this Cooperative Society, which itself has no title or interest, now claim the right to either gift or permit the MMC to develop the said property. The petitioners submit that based upon the offer of such a society, the MMC ought not to interfere with the said property or propose to develop the same. 8. The petitioners even challenged the registration of the aforesaid society. The petitioners submit that based upon the offer of such a society, the MMC ought not to interfere with the said property or propose to develop the same. 8. The petitioners even challenged the registration of the aforesaid society. This challenge was rejected by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, by his order dated 19.11.2021. The petitioners however appealed to the Cooperative Tribunal, Goa by instituting Cooperative Appeal No. 41/2021. By order dated 30.11.2021, the Cooperative Tribunal has stayed the Assistant Registrar's order dated 19.11.2021. Thus, even the issue of registration of the society is pending adjudication before the Cooperative Tribunal. The Cooperative Tribunal has also granted some sort of interim relief pending the final disposal of the appeal. Again there is no dispute that even this order operates to date. 9. Based upon the orders made by the Mamlatdar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the Director of Urban Development under the Goa Municipalities Act, and the Cooperative Tribunal under the provisions of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioners contend that the MMC has no right or authority to develop the said property or even interfere with the same. 10. Mr. Padiyar for the MMC made it clear that the MMC was not undertaking any development of the said property having regard to the order made by the Director of Urban Development. However, he pointed out that the parties who claim to be the owners of this property have offered to gift the same to MMC. He submits that for this purpose, the MMC requested the Inspector of Survey and Land Records (ISLR) to properly demarcate the said property, should any occasion arise in the future for the execution of a gift deed. Mr. Padiyar, on instructions, made it clear that unless the MMC obtains proper authority to undertake any development in the said property, the MMC has no intention of either interfering with the said property or developing the same. 11. Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for most of the private respondents who claim to have obtained title and interest from Walaulikar submitted that the petitioners have no declaration of tenancy in their favor. He pointed out that the petitioners' proceedings before the Mamlatdar are not against the branch of Walaulikar who are real owners of the said property. 11. Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for most of the private respondents who claim to have obtained title and interest from Walaulikar submitted that the petitioners have no declaration of tenancy in their favor. He pointed out that the petitioners' proceedings before the Mamlatdar are not against the branch of Walaulikar who are real owners of the said property. He pointed out that none of the parties who have purchased the land from Walaulikar were even impleaded by the petitioners before the Mamlatdar. He pointed out that the parties whom he represents have already applied for intervention before the Mamlatdar and will seek vacation of the interim order made by the Mamlatdar. He pointed out that the petitioners do possess the said property and it is the respondent Nos. 9 to 23 who are the owners in possession of the said property and they have every right to gift this property to MMC so that the MMC can develop the said open space as a garden. He, therefore, submitted that there was nothing wrong in the action of the MMC in proposing to develop the said property. 12. In this petition, we are not required to go into the disputes between the petitioners and the private respondents. Adjudication in such disputes is neither necessary in this petition nor will the same be feasible, considering the disputed questions of fact that are involved. In this petition, we are mainly concerned with the present authority of the MMC to develop the said property employing Municipal funds. Mr. Padiyar for MMC has however made it clear that at least presently MMC seeks neither to interfere with the said property nor to otherwise develop the same through municipal funds. This statement substantially redresses the main grievance of the Petitioners. 13. According to us, having regard to the orders made by at least three authorities referred above, including, in particular, the order made by the Director of Urban Development, the MMC cannot, at least at this stage interfere with or otherwise attempt to develop the said property based upon some NOCs or consents from the private respondents. The Director was justified in reasoning that municipal funds should not be spent on developing private properties in the absence of proper authorization or documentation from the title holders or parties having proper authority to authorize the same. 14. The Director was justified in reasoning that municipal funds should not be spent on developing private properties in the absence of proper authorization or documentation from the title holders or parties having proper authority to authorize the same. 14. The MMC has not even produced on record any fresh resolution authorizing the development of the said property after its earlier resolution dated 22.03.2016 was suspended by the director by his order dated 17.06.2019. The MMC has not even challenged the order dated 17.06.2019 made by the director. The MMC has thus, not placed on record any authority or pointed out any legal provision based on which its action of attempting to interfere or develop the said property can be sustained. Instead, quite fairly, Mr. Padiyar, based on instructions stated that there is no proposal for interference or development of the said property and the MMC had merely requested the ISLR to demarcate the said property. 15. Based on the aforesaid alone and without going into the disputes between the petitioners and the private respondents, we dispose of this petition by restraining the MMC from interfering with or otherwise developing the said property without the authority of law. This direction is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners and the private respondents in the pending proceedings or such further proceedings that may arise between them. Therefore, nothing in this order is intended to affect the disputes between the petitioners and the private respondents and such disputes will have to be disposed of on their own merits and in accord with the law. All contentions of the petitioners and the private respondents concerning such disputes are therefore left open for adjudication by the appropriate authorities. 16. The rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any order for costs.