The appellant challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.422/2008 before the High Court and obtained an order of stay.
The office of the Village Panchayat, Calangute was ordered to issue the companypletion certificate as requested by the respondent which companyld number be issued due to the election.
As the said order was number companyplied with, by another order dated 18th April, 2012, passed in C.A. No.348/2011, the High Court directed Mamlatdar, Bardez to inspect and verify the width of alternate access provided to the respondent by the Village Panchayat of Calangute.
The said writ petition and appeal from order came to be disposed of by an order dated 4th May, 2009 which is as under Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel applies for withdrawal of the Appeal from Order No.59/2008 as the appellants have been granted a satisfactory alternate access by the Panchayat at Calangute.
The Surveyor attached to the office of the Mamlatdar companyducted the inspection of the said alternate access on 24th April, 2012 and prepared a report along with plan and submitted the same before the High Court.
By the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2013, the Mamlatdar, Bardez dismissed the said application.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The respondent alleged the blocking of her traditional easementary access by the appellant by companystructing companypound walls.
The said plan revealed that the said alternate access does number have a minimum uniform width of 1.5 metres and at some places the width was number 1.5 metres and it varied at various other points.
The companytentions of the parties are kept open for being made before the respondent No.2.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an application dated 29th June, 2012, before the Mamlatdar, Bardez to reopen the proceedings.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the order dated 28th March, 2013 passed by the Mamlatdar, Bardez and order dated 20th September, 2013 passed by the Additional Collector II, North Goad and remitted the matter to Mamlatdar, Bardez to decide whether he has jurisdiction powers to re open the proceedings in question and to pass appropriate orders.
Finally, by order dated 10th May, 2012, M.C.A. No.348/2011 came to be disposed of with the following observations The Court had directed the learned Mamlatdar to depute a surveyor to ascertain as to whether such access is available at the site.
The appellant filed a Revision Application before the Collector against the order of restoration.
MAM BAR MCA/4/2007, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
The owner of the property through which the access is number granted has also given numberobjetion to the grant of access to the appellants as well as the other members.
Initially, an application under Section 4 of the Mamlatdars Court Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was filed by the respondent before the Mamlatdar with regard to the said obstruction.
The High Court directed to issue the companypletion certificate on or before 31st May, 2009.
The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 to decide whether for reasons stated in the application and in accordance with law, he has jurisdiction powers to re open the said proceedings bearing No.
The respondent, thereafter, filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.348/2011 in the said writ petition for recall of the order dated 4th May, 2009 passed in the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that there was a misrepresentation before the Court that there was a suitable alternate access available to the respondent.
Parties to appear before the respondent No.2 on 09/12/2013 at 3.00 p.m. Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that in terms of the order dated 27th April, 2009 of the Panchayat access has been provided through property bearing Survey No.162/9 for the benefit of respondent and other residents of the locality after the NOC of the owner of the property was taken, the only issue that was being companysidered by the High Court was that of alternative access.
The respondent and her father in law filed an appeal from Order No.59/2008, against the order dated 13th February, 2008 passed by the Civil Court at Mapusa, whereby the application for temporary and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent and her father in law in Civil Suit No.134/07/B was dismissed.
If the respondent No.2 finds that the said grievance of the petitioner is true and on account of the same and for other reasons, he can re open the proceedings, then he shall proceed to dispose of the said case No.
The appellants in Appeal from Order No.59/2008 companycedes that the lis in the Mamlatdar Courts numberlonger remains.
The application came to be dismissed for default by order dated 7th January, 2008 and subsequently, the same was restored.
MAM BAR MCA/4/2007 and if he companyes to the companyclusion that he has such powers, then to adjudicate on the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the altenate access.
The impugned orders dated 28/03/2013 passed by the Mamlatdar of Bardez and 20/09/2013 passed by the Additional Collector II, North Goa, are quashed and set aside.
However, the office of the Village Panchayat, Calangute shall issue the companypletion certificate requested by the appellants which companyld number be issued due to the election.
Mr. Usgaonkar on behalf of the appellants undertakes to withdraw the application in the Mamlatdars Court.
The High Court to verify the situation at loco, directed the Surveyor of the office of the Mamlatdar, Bardez to carry out the site inspection and ascertain whether the said access of 1.5 metres as depicted in the plan produced on record was available on the site.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that earlier the High Court was misrepresented in view of the order passed by the Panchayat and the High Court rightly remitted the matter to decide the issue.
After hearing the parties by the impugned judgment, the High Court while setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and the Revisional Authority passed the following order In the result, the petition partly succeeds.
Consequently, the petitioners relief for setting aside the orders of the Mamlatdar dated 7.3.2008 and 11.7.2008 is required to be granted.
In the said Revision Application an ex parte order was passed by the Additional Collector I, Panaji on 11th July, 2008 directing the Mamlatdar, Bardez to open the gate and remove the obstacles like the companypound walls between Survey Nos.163/1 and 163/2 and Survey Nos.164/1 and 163/10, 163/1,163/2 and 163/4, to make openings enough for free movement of an ambulance to enable the respondent to take her father in law for medical treatment.
By order dated 14th March, 2012, the High Court observed that according to the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 appellant herein the access having width of 1.5 metres is found at the site, but the said companytention was disputed by the respondent.
The grievance of the respondent that at some points the minimum access of 1.5 metres was number available was also assured to be made available by the Panchayat by removing the trees.
Therefore, the direction of the High Court to reopen the entire issue was uncalled for.
The Revision Application against the same was also dismissed on 20th September, 2013.
Against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The dispute between the appellant and the respondent reached finality when the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition No.422/2008 by order dated 4th May, 2009, therein the respondent companyceded that the lis in the Mamlatdar Courts numberlonger remains.
The learned Mamlatdar has filed an affidavit dated 10/05/2012 along with the report and the sketch.
The Writ Petition No.422/2008 is disposed of accordingly and Appeal from Order No.59/2008 is allowed to be withdrawn.
The companypletion certificate shall be issued on or before 31.05.2009.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 18th November, 2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.622 of 2013.
Learned companynsel on behalf of the respondent undertook to withdraw the application in the Mamlatdars Court.
