JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar with Akshay Shirodkar, learned Advocates appearing for the Applicant, Ms. Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocate Respondent No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. R.G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kakodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The application is for review of the Judgment passed by this Court on 14/12/2023 in Writ Petition No. 2398/2023(F). The only ground on which review is sought is that Para 17 of the Judgment passed by this Court records erroneous finding that there is no provision for regularisation under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Rule 3 (6) of Goa Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Buildings) (Amendment)Rules 1971, amended by amendment Rules 1985 provide that regularisation is permissible. 4. Rule 3 as per the amended Rules 1985 read thus:- 2. Amendment of Rule 3.- In rule 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971: (i) for clause (b) of sub-rule (2), the following clause shall be substituted, namely: - "(b) After enquiry and verification of title of the property, as may be necessary, the Panchayat may grant permission for the construction of kacha house in Panchayat areas without the approval of the Technical officer subject to the following conditions: - (ii) in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2), for letters and figures "Rs.10.000", the letters and figures "Rs.25.000" shall be substituted; (iii) after clause (a) of sub-rule (3), the following new. clause shall be inserted, namely: - "(aa) - In cases of villages which came under the jurisdiction of the Planning and Development Authority, the applicant shall submit. the application for building permission directly to the said Authority"; (iv) for sub-rule (b), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: - "(b) The Senior Town Planner or the Planning and Development Authority, as the case may be, shall whenever the applications are referred or made to them, communicate their decision to the Village Panchayat or to the applicant concerned, as the case may be, within one month from the receipt of the application. In the case of a Village falling within the jurisdiction of the Planning and Development Authority, the applicant shall, on the receipt of the approval of the Planning and Development Authority, produce the same before the concerned Village Panchayat and the said Panchayat shall issue the building permission, within a period of one week."; (v) for sub-rule (5), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: "(5) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), the decision of the Technical Officer or the Senior Town Planner concerned, as the case may be, under sub-rule (3) above, shall be final, and the Panchayat shall communicate its sanction, modification or refusal to the applicant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such a decision."; (vi) after sub-rule (5), the following new sub-rule shall be inserted, namely: - "(6) The Panchayat may direct a person who erects or reerects or commences to erect or re-erect any building without its permission to present to it an application for such permission, within a period of thirty days, and may grant such permission after following the procedure laid down in this rule subject to the payment of penalty, which shall not be less than one and half times and not more than two times of the fee payable for such permission." 5. Mr. Mulgaonkar would submit that such Rules are saved under Sec. 245 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. He submits that in view of the above contentions, the observations of this Court in the case of Manohar Korgaonkar Vs. Gurudas Korgaonkar in Writ Petition no. 616/2008 decided on 19/2/2013 would apply and since the application for regularisation is still pending with the concerned authorities, the Applicant is entitled for such regularisation. He also placed reliance in the case of Sayyad Muzafar Ali Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995 Suppl, 4 SCC 426 to claim that mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the Structure. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 strongly contended that first of all there is no ground for review and that the Applicant by misleading the Supreme Court requested for leave to file Review Petition. He submits that this is the 9th round of litigation which Respondent No. 2 is facing. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 strongly contended that first of all there is no ground for review and that the Applicant by misleading the Supreme Court requested for leave to file Review Petition. He submits that this is the 9th round of litigation which Respondent No. 2 is facing. He further submits that there is no provision under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for considering any request for regularisation of unauthorised construction and therefore only because the Rule exists, which is otherwise not applicable, no regularisation is possible. He further submits that the Applicant filed First Appeal bearing No. 1192/2022(F) challenging the Judgement and Decree passed by the District Court. However, withdrew the said Appeal stating that the relief therein became infructuous. 7. The first contention of Mr. Mulgaonkar that there is an error apparent on the face of record in para 17 of the Order of this Court, is incorrect. Today also, Mr. Mulgaonkar failed to point out any provision under Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to contend that there are powers with regard to regularisation of any illegal structure. Thus the ground which has been raised in the present review is itself not tenable. 8. The second contention of Mr. Mulgoankar that the Rules framed under the provisions of the Old Act and the amendment carried out to it in the year 1985 is in operation is again incorrect. The Goa Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation) 1962 under which the Rules were framed in connection with regulation of Buildings, stands repealed under Sec. 245 of Panchayat Raj Act. What is saved is only the previous action taken, orders passed or the duty done under the previous ordinance 9. Even if Rule 3 (6) as quoted earlier is considered, the same provides that it is for the Panchayat who may direct a person to file application within a period of 30 days and accordingly grant permission after following the procedure laid down under the said Rules. 10. In the present matter order of demolition was issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayat on 14/12/1998, since the Panchayat failed to take any action on the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2. The Applicant challenged such order of demolition by filing the Writ Petition before this Court bearing no. 77/2006. 10. In the present matter order of demolition was issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayat on 14/12/1998, since the Panchayat failed to take any action on the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2. The Applicant challenged such order of demolition by filing the Writ Petition before this Court bearing no. 77/2006. Thereafter, the Applicant filed a suit before the Civil Court challenging the Order of demolition. The said Civil Suit was decided against the Applicant and accordingly, the Appeal was filed before the District Court, on the sole ground that the structure is already regularised. Since this contention was found to be a false plea, the District Court dismissed the said Appeal. 11. The Deputy Director of Panchayat directed the Village Panchayat to take action and accordingly a fresh notice of demolition was issued on 11/10/2023 which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2398/2023. The said petition was dismissed vide Order dtd. 14/12/2023. The Applicant then preferred a Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court and an Order was passed on 19/1/2024 which reads thus:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to prosecute the present petition but approach the High Court in its review jurisdiction. Liberty is preserved to the petitioner for further approaching this Court in the event he is unsuccessful before the High Court in its review jurisdiction. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 12. The Review Petition though filed, no provision under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act 1994 is pointed out which provide application for regularisation of illegal structure. Unless there is any provision under the Act, which is a prerogative of the legislature to frame a statute, cannot be substituted by Rules, which is actually the prerogative of the Executives. Thus, in absence of any provision under the Panchayat Raj Act 1994, the Applicant cannot be permitted to take recourse to the earlier Rules, which along with the regulations stands repealed, except the actions, orders or duties performed by the authorities under the old Rules. 13. The decision cited by Mr. Mulgaonkar are therefore not helpful in the present proceedings. Even otherwise, decision in the case of Sayyed Muzafar Ali (Supra) is based only on the facts of that particular matter and such observations will not in any way help the Applicant in the present matter. 13. The decision cited by Mr. Mulgaonkar are therefore not helpful in the present proceedings. Even otherwise, decision in the case of Sayyed Muzafar Ali (Supra) is based only on the facts of that particular matter and such observations will not in any way help the Applicant in the present matter. It is settled proposition of law that the decision which is having a binding effect has to be decided with regard to the provision of law under challenge. In the said decision reference is only regarding Town Planning Act and special regularisation under it is totally different from Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 14. The review application is therefore having no merit and accordingly, stands rejected. 15. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this Order.