JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Mr Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr Sagar Rivankar for the Petitioner, Mr A. D. Bhobe for Respondent No.1 and Mr Jatin Ramaiya for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the following:- < WXY>a) Panchayat's demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017; b) Additional Director of Panchayat's Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020 partly upholding Panchayat's demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017; c) District Court's order dtd. 11/2/2022 upholding Additional Director of Panchayat's Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020.</ WXY> 4. Thus, the challenge in this petition is to the concurrent orders made by the Panchayat, Additional Director of Panchayats and the District Court ordering the demolition of illegal constructions put up by the petitioner in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Village Queula, Goa. Even though the show cause notice and demolition order was made in respect of ten structures, the Additional Director, in his Judgment and Order dtd. 4/11/2020, directed the demolition of seven illegal structures but not the three remaining structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401 which were assessed to tax by the Panchayat. 5. Mr Pereira learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017 violated the principles of natural justice because no notice of site inspection was served upon the petitioner. He offered that the endorsement on the Panchanama that the petitioner refused to sign the Panchanama is incorrect. He submitted that the petitioner has denied signing the notice of inspection and the Additional Director and the District Court did not adequately consider this aspect. He offered that the demolition order based upon inspection behind the petitioner's back would violate the principles of natural justice and fair play. He relied on Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v/s. Inderjit Singh And Another - (2008) 13 SCC 506 and referred to a passage from De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1980 Edition) supporting his contentions. 6. Mr Pereira submitted that there were several structures in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Queula Village. He offered that the Panchayat was duty-bound to identify the structures it alleged were illegal. He submitted that if any structures were illegal or unauthorised, the petitioner would not hesitate to demolish them. 6. Mr Pereira submitted that there were several structures in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Queula Village. He offered that the Panchayat was duty-bound to identify the structures it alleged were illegal. He submitted that if any structures were illegal or unauthorised, the petitioner would not hesitate to demolish them. However, he offered that due to the vagueness of the impugned demolition order and the ex-parte site visit and panchanamas, the petitioner apprehends the demolition of the legal structures. Mr Pereira submits that this is a good enough reason to set aside the impugned Judgments and Orders, even though concurrent. 7. Mr Pereira states that the constructions were built before 1994, i.e. before the Panchayat Raj Act 1994 entered force. He, therefore, submitted that the same are not illegal and unauthorised, as alleged by the Panchayat. He submits that the Additional Director and the District Court did not adequately consider this aspect of the matter. 8. Mr Pereira submits that the impugned demolition order and the Judgments and Orders of the Additional Director and the District Court must be interfered with on all the above grounds and for all the above reasons. 9. Mr A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel for respondent no.1- Panchayat, submits that principles of natural justice and fair play were followed in this matter. He presents that the petitioner came up with a false case about not receiving any notice of inspection. However, records were called, and it was verified that the petitioner not only received the notice of inspection but also signed it as a token of receipt. Mr Bhobe invited the Court to compare the notice's signature with the petitioner's admitted signatures. He submitted that there could be no doubt about the receipt of the notice and the signature of the petitioner. Mr Bhobe pointed out that even in the reply, no clear statement was made denying the signature on the notice. For all these reasons Mr Bhobe submitted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. 10. Mr Bhobe submitted that, in any case, there was no confusion about the ten structures referred to in the show cause notice and the panchanamas that were furnished to the petitioner. The location and dimensions were all clearly disclosed. The petitioner raised No dispute about identification, except mainly before this Court. 10. Mr Bhobe submitted that, in any case, there was no confusion about the ten structures referred to in the show cause notice and the panchanamas that were furnished to the petitioner. The location and dimensions were all clearly disclosed. The petitioner raised No dispute about identification, except mainly before this Court. Mr Bhobe submitted that no case was pleaded or made out by the petitioner that any of the ten structures had valid permissions from the Panchayat, Planning Department, or Authorities. Therefore, based upon some fanciful allegation of failure of natural justice, no case is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders made by the three authorities, including the District Court. 11. Mr Bhobe submitted that merely because there were housetax receipts in respect of three of the structures, the Additional Director of Panchayats was not justified in excluding the three structures. Mr Bhobe submitted that even these three structures were not backed by any permissions from the Panchayat or the Planning Authorities. 12. Mr Bhobe submitted that the Panchanamas disclosed that the petitioner had put up new but illegal and unauthorised structures without obtaining permission from any authorities. The plea that these old structures were put up before 1994 was false and never substantiated. In any case, he pointed out that the petitioner had to produce permissions under the Village Panchayat Regulations of 1962 and Building Regulations of 1971 if the structures were legal and authorised. Merely stating that the structures were put up before 1994 without substantiating this statement was insufficient. Mr Bhobe relied on the order of the Division Bench dtd. 26/4/2023 in Public Interest Litigation (Suo Moto) No.2 of 2022 in support of his contentions. 13. For all the above reasons, Mr Bhobe submitted that this petition may be dismissed. 14. Mr Jatin Ramaiya, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 (complainant), by adopting the arguments made by Mr Bhobe, submitted that the petitioner had put up several unauthorised constructions taking advantage of the disputes between the parties. He pointed out that these unauthorised constructions were being released to labourers seasonally. He submitted that these were recent unauthorised constructions without obtaining permission from any authorities and without following the rules and regulations. He proposed that the petitioner was only bent upon delaying the execution of the demolition orders. He pointed out that these unauthorised constructions were being released to labourers seasonally. He submitted that these were recent unauthorised constructions without obtaining permission from any authorities and without following the rules and regulations. He proposed that the petitioner was only bent upon delaying the execution of the demolition orders. He raised that respondent 3 should pursue demolishing three excluded structures because a mere grant of house-tax receipt does not regularise a patently illegal and unauthorised structure. Mr Ramaiya, therefore, submitted that this petition may be dismissed with costs. 15. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 16. On a complaint by respondent no.3 that the petitioner has put up several illegal constructions in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Village Queula (Ward No.7), the Block Development Officer (BDO) vide communication dtd. 12/7/2017 directed the Village Panchayat of Queula (Panchayat) to hold a site inspection to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. 17. Accordingly, the Panchayat addressed the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 to the petitioner, informing him about the BDO's communication and requiring the petitioner to attend the site inspection scheduled on 25/7/2017 from 11.00 a.m. onwards. A copy of the notice of inspection dated 18/7/2017 was marked to the BDO, Deputy Sarpanch, all members of the Panchayat and the Police Inspector, Ponda Police Station, Ponda, Goa. 18. The notice bears the signatures of all the recipients. Most recipients received the notice on 19/7/2017 except the BDO, who received the notice on 18/7/2017. This notice of inspection bears the signature of the petitioner with the date 19/7/2017. 19. The petitioner, however, disputes the receipt of the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017. The Panchayat had served the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 on the petitioner. The Panchayat filed an affidavit in this Court on 21/3/2022. Paragraph 6 of the Panchayat's affidavit reads as follows:- < WXY>"6. I say that upon the receipt of the said Memorandum and as per the directions of the Block Development Officer, Ponda Block, this Respondent issued the Notice of Inspection to the Petitioner on 18/7/2017 stating that the site inspection of the alleged illegal/unauthorized structures done by the Petitioner will be carried on 25/7/2017 at 11.00 am onwards. The said Notice of Inspection was duly served to the Petitioner in person by the Panchayat Peon on 19/7/2017. The said Notice of Inspection was duly served to the Petitioner in person by the Panchayat Peon on 19/7/2017. The Panchayat Peon Shri. Jayesh Magan Kavlekar has sworn an affidavit stating that he had personally handed over the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 to the Petitioner herein on 19/7/2017. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B Colly is a copy of the Notice of Inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 and the affidavit of Panchayat Peon dtd. 21/3/2022."</ WXY> 20. To the Panchayat's affidavit, the affidavit of the Panchayat Peon dtd. 21/3/2022 was also annexed. The Panchayat Peon, Shri Jayesh Magan Kavlekar, has stated on oath that he handed over the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 personally to the petitioner on 19/7/2017 at his residence and duly obtained his signature on the office copy of the notice of inspection. 21. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in rejoinder on 4/4/2022, responding to the Panchayat's affidavit dtd. 21/3/2022. In the specific context of the statements in paragraph 6 of the Panchayat's affidavit in reply, the petitioner has stated the following in paragraph 10 of his affidavit in rejoinder dtd. 4/4/2022:- < WXY>"With regard to contents of para 6 of the Affidavit in Reply I specifically deny that the notice of inspection was served to me in person by the Panchayat peon on 19/7/2017, as alleged. At the cost of repetition, I reiterate and submit that the copy of the notice of inspection was not served on me and the Affidavit filed and relied upon of the Panchayat peon, Jayesh Magan Kavlekar is a tailor made affidavit filed by the said person at the behest of the Respondent Panchayat, to suit the false case of the Respondent Panchayat in an endeavor to please his superiors."</ WXY> 22. Though, in the Panchayat's affidavit and Panchayat Peon's affidavit, there was an assertion about the petitioner signing the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017, the petitioner did not bother to state on oath that the signature on the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 is not the petitioner's signature. Only a vague assertion is made in the rejoinder that the notice was not served upon the petitioner. Such vague denial hardly inspires any confidence. In any case, the Addl. Director and the District Court, on evaluating the material on record, disbelieved the Petitioner. Their approach has no infirmity, and the factual finding warrants no interference. 23. Only a vague assertion is made in the rejoinder that the notice was not served upon the petitioner. Such vague denial hardly inspires any confidence. In any case, the Addl. Director and the District Court, on evaluating the material on record, disbelieved the Petitioner. Their approach has no infirmity, and the factual finding warrants no interference. 23. The Additional Director of Panchayats and the District Court have accepted the Panchayat's documents and statements made on behalf of the Panchayat and its Peon on oath about service of the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 on the petitioner and the factum of the petitioner signing the notice in token of its acceptance. Even the comparison of the petitioner's admitted signature and the signature on the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 supports the findings of fact concurrently recorded by all the authorities. The conclusion based on such a comparison is not meant to be conclusive in the present matter. However, this is only an additional circumstance to hold that the petitioner was indeed served with the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the authorities on this issue warrant no interference based merely on vague assertions by the petitioner that he was never served with this notice. 24. The Panchayat, along with its affidavit, has placed several site inspection attendance sheets concerning the inspections carried out on 25/7/2017. Regarding each structure alleged to be illegal and unauthorised, separate site inspection attendance sheets, reports of illegal constructions, and panchanamas have been prepared, along with sketches. Each of these site inspection attendance sheets refers to the petitioner's name. In addition, they refer to the names and signatures of the several members comprising the inspection team, including the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch, and all members of the Panchayat who have signed the site inspection attendance sheets. The name of the petitioner is also recorded in the site inspection attendance sheet (as the respondent) against which there appears the following remark:- < WXY>"We requested the respondent to sign on the panchanama but he refused to sign."</ WXY> 25. The name of the petitioner is also recorded in the site inspection attendance sheet (as the respondent) against which there appears the following remark:- < WXY>"We requested the respondent to sign on the panchanama but he refused to sign."</ WXY> 25. Based on a vague assertion by the petitioner that he never received the site inspection notice or that he was not present for the site inspection held by practically all members of the Panchayat under BDO's notice, there is no ground to disturb the concurrent findings of all authorities about service of the notice of inspection on the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner for the site inspection, and his refusal to sign the site inspection attendance sheet despite being requested to sign so. Based on such concurrent findings that suffer from no perversity, the petitioner's assertion about violating principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. 26. The petitioner, it is apparent, is simply trying to create a boggy of failure of natural justice on the ground that he was not served the copy of the notice of inspection or that the inspection was held behind his back. The documents like panchanama and sketches containing the location and dimensions of the illegal constructions were provided to the petitioner. The petitioner does not even dispute this position. 27. From the panchanama and the sketches attached to the panchanama, there is no ambiguity about the identity of the illegal structures. Even the petitioner does not dispute that the structures are in the property surveyed under No.26/1 of Village Queula. The petitioner does not dispute that the structures are in Ward No.7 of the Panchayat. The sketches depict the PondaMargao main road. The distance of these structures from the Ponda-Margao main road is clearly stated in the sketch annexed to the panchanama. The dimensions of the illegal constructions are also stated. The panchanama is signed by two independent panchas after the contents of the panchanama were explained to them in Konkani and the panchas verified the correctness thereof. 28. The panchanama clearly describes the nature of the structure and the purpose for which it was used. For example, the panchanama describes the structure as a new pakka construction rented out as a chicken centre, etc. The materials used, like sand, cement, laterite stones, GI pipes, GI sheets, is noted in the panchanama. The nature of the roof pattern is also noted. For example, the panchanama describes the structure as a new pakka construction rented out as a chicken centre, etc. The materials used, like sand, cement, laterite stones, GI pipes, GI sheets, is noted in the panchanama. The nature of the roof pattern is also noted. The approximate costs of construction are also noted. The location and survey number are also stated with precision. There is a direct reference to the property surveyed under No.26/1 and Ward No.7 of the Panchayat. 29. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner did not receive the notice of inspection dtd. 18/7/2017 or that he was not present for the site inspection held on 25/7/2017, no prejudice whatsoever could be said to have been suffered by the petitioner given the detailed panchanama and sketch. The argument about identity was never seriously raised before the Panchayat, Additional Director or the District Court. In any case, the argument for the identity of the illegal structures is entirely misconceived, given the details set out in the panchanama and the accompanying sketch. 30. At least the two authorities, i.e. the Additional Director and the District Court, have examined the contention about natural justice's failure and concluded that there was no failure. These are findings of fact which are supported by documentary evidence. Accordingly, there is no merit in Mr Pereira's contention about the failure of natural justice or confusion about the identity of the illegal structures. 31. The decision in Inderjit Singh (supra) or the observations from De Smith might apply only if it were to be established that there was no notice of inspection served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner could not remain present for the inspection. The Petitioner has failed to establish such facts. Even if the Petitioner were to, the decision and the observations would still be distinguishable because the Petitioner failed to plead or establish any prejudice in the present case. 32. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice based upon the site inspection panchanama and sketch. The petitioner was given a full opportunity by the Panchayat before issuing a demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017. The petitioner failed to produce any documents in support of the illegality of the ten structures. The petitioner only produced some house-tax receipts regards structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401. Regarding the balance structures, the petitioner did not have such material. 33. The petitioner was given a full opportunity by the Panchayat before issuing a demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017. The petitioner failed to produce any documents in support of the illegality of the ten structures. The petitioner only produced some house-tax receipts regards structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401. Regarding the balance structures, the petitioner did not have such material. 33. Accordingly, the Panchayat made the demolition orders regarding all ten structures. Mr Bhobe learned counsel for the Panchayat, reasoned that assessing a structure to tax does not render the structure legal. Taxation is a fiscal measure that confers no legality upon an inherently illegal and unauthorised structure. This submission is correct; there was no good reason to exclude structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401. Levy of house tax by the panchayat does not confer any legitimacy on an illegal structure. 34. The Additional Director of Panchayats examined the petitioner's contention based upon the failure of natural justice and recorded the finding of fact that there was no failure. Similarly, the District Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, though not strictly bound, examined the contention about the failure of natural justice and upheld the finding recorded by the Additional Director of Panchayats. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact on this issue backed by documentary evidence. No case is made to infer any failure of natural justice or to interfere with the impugned orders based on any ambiguity in the identity of the structures in question. 35. However, the Additional Director of Panchayat excluded structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401. The reasoning about such structures being assessed to tax and, therefore, the same might be authorised is incorrect and cannot be approved. Be that as it may, the Additional Director's reasoning about the seven structures, which it directed the Panchayat to demolish, warrants no interference because, in respect of these structures, the petitioner failed to produce any permission from any authorities. The structures were put up in breach of all rules and regulations with scant regard for legal procedures like obtaining permissions, building regulations, etc. 36. The petitioner's contention about the structures being old, i.e., constructed before 1994 when the said Act entered force, also lacks merit. The panchanamas show that the structures were new. Besides, stating that the structures were put up before 1994 does not mean that the structures were legal or authorised. 36. The petitioner's contention about the structures being old, i.e., constructed before 1994 when the said Act entered force, also lacks merit. The panchanamas show that the structures were new. Besides, stating that the structures were put up before 1994 does not mean that the structures were legal or authorised. Before 1994, there were Goa Village Panchayat Regulations of 1962 and the Building Regulations of 1971. These legislations/rules contemplated a detailed procedure for applying for permissions and grant of licenses. There was a requirement for setbacks, etc. Therefore, based upon a vague plea that the structures were put up prior to 1994 does not render such structures, which were found to be new, as some legal or authorised structures. 37. In Public Interest Litigation (Suo Moto) No.2/2022, a similar plea was raised by the Panchayat, which dropped about 175 show cause notices issued to structures on the ground that house tax receipts were produced in respect of such structures. While disapproving the Panchayat's approach, this Court, made the following observations in paragraph 13 of the order dtd. 26/4/2023:- < WXY>"Accordingly, we quash and set aside the resolutions dtd. 13/1/2023, 6/2/2023, 20/2/2023, 14/3/2023, 15/3/2023 and 18/3/2023, which are tabulated herein above. Since we have set aside the above referred resolutions of the Panchayat, we deem it proper to direct the Village Panchayat of Anjuna-Caisua to decide and pass necessary orders on 175 show cause notices issued to the occupants/ owners of these structures afresh, within a period of two months from today. The legality of these structures shall be decided only in terms of Sec. 66 of the Act i.e. to determine whether the Panchayat has issued any construction license under Sec. 66 of the Act to these structures either under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act or under the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008 and the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, and the procedure set out therein as referred to in this order. It is made clear that the production of house tax receipts or the trade license or electricity bills or water bills to prove the legality of the structures would be irrelevant for the purpose of passing an order on the show cause notice under Sec. 66 of the Act. It is made clear that the production of house tax receipts or the trade license or electricity bills or water bills to prove the legality of the structures would be irrelevant for the purpose of passing an order on the show cause notice under Sec. 66 of the Act. The sole criteria for the Panchayat's decision under that provisions would be, whether it has issued a valid building license under the Act. Needless to say, that this decision would be always subject to the decision of the GCZMA on the legality of these structures under the CRZ notification and no discharge of the show cause notices can be granted on any other conditions."</ WXY> 38. Thus, there is no merit in the petitioner's last contention based on the false premise that the seven structures were put up before 1994. After considering all such contentions, the three authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact that are not perverse or otherwise not supported by the material on record. 39. From the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner put up illegal constructions which are being rented out seasonally to persons for commercial purposes. The structures are backed by no permissions whatsoever from any authorities. The structures have been put up in breach of the said Act and the other laws concerning such constructions. By raising mostly frivolous defences, the petitioner has stalled the demolitions for over six years. 40. In Gurudas Vattu Chati Aldonkar v/s. State of Goa and Ors. - Writ Petition No.284/2022 decided on 29/9/2022, the Division Bench of this Court, referring to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that such illegal constructions must be dealt with in "iron fist". In fact, this was the expression used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4135/2021 against the decision in Commissioner v/s. Tahir Isani - 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 122. In Gurudas Aldonkar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Panchayats have no powers to regularise the illegal and unauthorised constructions that are brazenly put up. 41. For all the above reasons this petition is dismissed without any cost order. 42. The Panchayat is now directed to demolish the seven structures referred to in its demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017. 41. For all the above reasons this petition is dismissed without any cost order. 42. The Panchayat is now directed to demolish the seven structures referred to in its demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017. However, the Panchayat shall not demolish the balance three structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401 based on the impugned demolition order dtd. 1/11/2017. Nothing in the impugned orders or this order will preclude the panchayat from taking fresh steps concerning the structures bearing Nos.386, 397 and 401. 43. The Panchayat must carry out the demolitions within three months, if necessary, by taking the assistance of the demolition squads provided by the State. The State must provide the services of such squads when requested by the Panchayat. The Panchayat must file a compliance report with the Director of Panchayats with a copy to respondent no.3. 44. The Rule is discharged. The interim order is vacated. 45. There shall be no order for costs. 46. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order.