Bombay High Court
Raghuvir Sitaram Sawant vs Deelip Laxman Sawant @ Deelip Tukaram ... on 25 September, 2024
2024:BHC-GOA:1578
2024:BHC-GOA:1578
WP.70/2024
Shakuntala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2024
MR. RAGHUVIR SITARAM SAWANT
son of Sitaram Sawant, 59 Years of age,
service, married, Resident of H.No. 394/A/2,
Sawant wada, Oxelbag, Dhargal, Pernem, Goa ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. MR. DEELIP LAXMAN SAWANT alias
Deelip Tukaram Sawant, Son of late
Tukaram Sawant, 58 years of age, married
2. Mrs. DEEPAVATI DEELIP SWANT
Wife of Mr.Deelip Tukaram Sawant,
58 years of age, married, housewife,
Both Residents of House no. 393,
Sawant Wada Oxelbag, Dhargal
Pernem Goa. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Arjun F. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. Gaurish Malik, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM:- BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 25th September, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
25th September, 2024
3. The matter is taken up for final disposal with
consent of the parties.
4. Heard Mr. Naik learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. Malik learned counsel for the Respondent.
5. In the present proceedings, the learned Trial Court
after considering the material before it, granted injunction
vide order dated 10/03/2022, with a specific relief that the
Respondents/Defendants are restrained from carrying out
further construction in the suit property till the disposal of
the suit.
6. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the suit with a specific
averment in the plaint that the Respondents/Defendants
started a new construction in the suit plot which is by the side
of the house of the Plaintiff, without obtaining any
permission from the concerned authorities.
7. After granting of the temporary injunction by the
Trial Court, the Respondents filed an appeal wherein the
learned First Appellate Court reversed the order of the
25th September, 2024
learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03/01/2024,
which is challenged in the present proceedings.
8. Mr. Naik submits that the Plaintiff is claiming to be
Tenant of the suit property whereas Mr. Malik appearing for
the Respondent submits that the Plaintiff is not having any
such right.
9. However, it is a fact that the Plaintiff is having his
house in the suit property and by the side of the said house, a
new construction activity started on behalf of the Defendants
which triggered in filing of the Civil Suit. The photographs
produced on record would clearly go to show that a
completely new construction activity started in the suit plot.
10. Mr. Malik appearing for the Respondent/Defendant
fairly admit that no permission was obtained by the
Defendants to carry out any construction in the said plot. He
submits that the even the construction of the
Plaintiff/Appellants is illegal.
25th September, 2024
11. Mr. Malik now submits that the Village Panchayat
has already issued a Stop Work Notice and restrained the
Defendants from carrying out any construction.
12. The learned Trial Court after considering the
material observed that a prima facie case is made out since a
totally new and illegal construction was being carried out in
the suit plot. The question as to whether the Plaintiff is
Tenant or not will have to be gone into, however, the First
Appellate Court and that too on some technical grounds
reversed a well reasoned order of the Trial Court.
13. The Defendants admit that they are not having any
permission from the competent authorities to carry out
construction. The First and foremost step is to stop such
illegal construction. It is no doubt true that the Village
Panchayat has already taken action against the Defendant
and issued a Stop Work Order. That apart, when the civil
proceedings are pending and a temporary injunction was
granted by the Trial Court on the ground that it is completely
illegal activity carried out by the Defendant and that too in
25th September, 2024
neighbourhood of the Plaintiff, the same ought not to have
been disturbed on the technical plea of not giving details of
the encroachment as alleged.
14. The learned First Appellate Court completely lost
sight that an illegal construction is coming up at the site
which requires immediate restraint since the Defendant
failed to obtain requisite permissions from the concerned
Department.
15. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the First
Appellate Court requires interference in the writ jurisdiction.
16. The impugned order passed by the First Appellate
Court is therefore, quashed and set aside, whereas the order
passed by the learned Trial Court is restored.
17. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
18. Petition stands disposed of.
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
25th September, 2024
