Bombay High Court
Sagardeep Sirsaikar vs State Of Goa, Thr. The Secretary And 6 Ors on 11 March, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-GOA:414-DB
2025:BHC-GOA:414-DB
07-WP-752-2024.doc
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 752 OF 2024
Mr. Sagardeep Sirsaikar, son of
Audumber Sirsaikar, Aged 49 years,
married, Business, resident of H. No.
647, Badem, Assagao, Bardez Goa. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, ...Respondents
Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
2. The Chief Town Planner, Town and
Country Planning Department, Dempo
Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa.
3. The Deputy Town Planner, Town and
Country Planning Department, Mapusa,
Bardez, Goa.
4. The Additional Collector III, North
Goa, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.
5. The Sarpanch/Secretary, Village
Panchayat Anjuna, Caisua,
Anjuna,Bardez, Goa.
6. Mrs. Anita Lamba, Major in age,
Business, resident of H. No. 1259/2 &
1259/3, Gaun-Waddi, Anjuna, Bardez,
Goa.
7. Mr. Inder Singh, Major of age,
Business, H. No. 1259/2 & 1259/3,
Gaun-Waddi, Anjuna,Bardez-Goa,
403509.
Mr. Hrudaynath S. Shirodkar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. Samant, Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4-State.
Page 1 of 4
11th March 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2025 22:21:34 :::
07-WP-752-2024.doc
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 11th March, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice)
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties,
heard finally.
2. Taking into account the nature of the order which this Court
proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents nos.
5, 6 and 7 with the consent of the parties.
3. In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to
respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 to take steps to demolish the extra floor
constructed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 exceeding the F.A.R. for the
said Zone situated at Survey no. 509/1-A of Village Anjuna. The
petitioner, in addition, seeks a direction to evoke all the
permissions/licences and approvals granted to respondent nos.6 and 7.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Writ Petition, in a
nutshell, are that according to the petitioner, respondents nos. 6 and 7,
without seeking any approvals/permissions, had raised construction of
the residential building, compound wall as well and swimming pool on
11th March 2025
07-WP-752-2024.doc
land bearing survey no. 509/1-A of Village Anjuna. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner submitted a complaint. However, the complaint
submitted by the petitioner failed to carry any response. Hence, this
Petition.
5. When this matter was called today, Mr. Samant, the learned
Additional Government Advocate submitted that cognisance of the
complaint submitted by the petitioner has already been taken and the
Deputy Town Planner, Bardez, Goa, shall inspect the site in the
presence of the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 6 and 7 and
submit a report to the Panchayat within one month about the
constructions alleged to be made by the respondent nos. 6 and 7
without any sanction and illegal conversion of the basement.
Thereupon, it would be open to the Panchayat to take action against the
respondent nos. 6 and 7 based on the report. It is submitted that
thereafter, the Panchayat be granted the liberty to take an action
against respondents nos. 6 and 7 based on the report which the Deputy
Town Planner, Bardez, Goa may submit. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition be disposed of in the terms
mentioned above.
6. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties and in the
facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose would be served by
keeping the Writ Petition pending.
11th March 2025
07-WP-752-2024.doc
7. The petition is disposed of in the following by the following
order:
(i) The Deputy Town Planner, Bardez, shall carry out
the inspection in the presence of the petitioner and
respondent nos. 6 and 7 after giving them a notice and
shall submit a report about the validity of the
constructions alleged to be made by the respondent
nos. 6 and 7 without any sanction and illegal
conversion of the basement. Let the aforesaid
exercise be carried out within a period of one month.
(ii) On the receipt of the report, which the
Deputy Town Planner may submit, it is needless to
state that the Panchayat shall take action against
respondents nos. 6 and 7 if so required in
accordance with law after affording them an
opportunity of hearing. Such action must be taken
within three months of receiving adverse report.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
11th March 2025
