ARCHDIOCESE OF GOA AND DAMAN, REP. BY ITS FIN. ADMN./PROCURATOR AND CONST. ATT., FR. NOEL DSOUZAversusTHE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI (CCP) AND 2 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1644

                Andreza
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 397 OF 2023

               Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, with office
               at Bishop’s House, Altinho, Panaji, Goa,
               403001, represented by its Financial
               Administrator/Procurator and Constituted
               Attorney Fr. Noel D’Costa, son of Natividade
               D’Costa, 47 years of age, ordained Roman
               Catholic Priest, residing at Bishop’s House,
               Altinho, Panaji, Goa.                            … Petitioner
                                Versus
               1. The Commissioner, Corporation of the
               City of Panaji (CCP), Having office at
               Corporation of the City of Panaji Building,
               Tiswadi, Ilhas, Goa.

               2. Mr. Lambertino Armando Natividade
               Rodrigues, resident of House No. 237, Mitra
               Bazar, Caranzalem, Tiswadi, Ilhas, Goa.

               3. Mrs. Celia Lazarina Marques, Resident of
               House No. 237, Mitra Bazar, Caranzalem,
               Tiswadi, Ilhas, Goa.

               4. State of Goa, through Secretary (Urban
               Development) at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.     ...Respondents

                Mr. Vinod Korgaonkar, Advocate with Ms. Kshama Naik, Advocate for
                the Petitioner.

                Mr. Somnath Karpe, Advocate with Mr. Anand Shirodkar, Advocate for
                the Respondent No.1.

                Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Nadkarni, Mr. Nilay
                Naik and Mr. N. Noronha, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                Ms. Sulekha Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the
                Respondent No.4.

                                             Page 1 of 12
                                            17th August 2026
                CORAM :           S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

       RESERVED ON :              10th AUGUST 2026
     PRONOUNCED ON :              17th AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT


1.    Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is

taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.


2.    The Petitioner impugns the Judgment and Order dated

15.05.2023 passed by the Secretary for Urban Development,

Secretariat,    Porvorim,        Goa,       in      Municipal       Appeal   No.

SEC/UD/126/2021, whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 3

came to be allowed, setting aside the Order dated 07.09.2021 passed

by Respondent No.1–Commissioner, in Case No. F6/CCP/ENG/

PM/SG/2021-22/5337.         By     the    said      Order   dated     07.09.2021,

Respondent No. 1 had revoked Construction Licence No. 401/1/CCP/

ENG/CONST-LIC-13/2020-2021/44 dated 25.01.2021 granted in

favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and had further directed removal of

the encroaching construction.


3.    The brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are stated

as under :



                                  Page 2 of 12
                                 17th August 2026
      On 15.10.1965, the Petitioner-Archdiocese of Goa, transferred

300.30 square metres (part of chalta Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of P.T. Sheet

No. 164 of the City of Panaji) to Roguvira Narana Poi and his wife,

retaining ownership of 80 square metres forming part of chalta No. 34

(admeasuring 207 square metres) as the ‘Mitra-Archdiocese’.


      On 16.04.1984, Roguvira Poi and his wife sold same 300.30

square metres to Estavao Eusebio Apolinario Rodrigues and his wife

Francisca Ana Joaquim Rodrigues. The Deed’s recitals also vaguely

refers to 80 square metres additional land in possession of the vendors,

on which basis the purchasers later claimed a total of 301 square

metres along with excess 80 square metres.


4.    Notwithstanding the fact that, under the Deed of Sale dated

16.04.1984, Mr. Estavao Eusebio and his wife, Francisca, acquired title

to a plot of land admeasuring 300.30 square metres, surveyed under

Chalta Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of P.T. Sheet No. 164 of the City Survey of

Panaji, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (successors of Estavao & Franscisca)

sought approval for excess area from the Greater Panaji Planning and

Development Authority (‘GPPDA’). The said approval was granted

vide Reference No. GPPDA/432/PNG/157/2020, wherein Respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 represented themselves to be the owners of a plot of land

admeasuring 371 square metres forming part of the property bearing


                              Page 3 of 12
                             17th August 2026
P.T. Sheet No. 164 of the City Survey of Panaji. According to the

Petitioner, the approval accorded by Goa, Daman and Diu Town and

Country Planning Act, 1974, (‘TCP Act 1974’) and Construction

Licence accorded by Corporation of the City of Panaji (‘CCP’), glaringly

fortifies the fact that it has been obtained by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

by making misrepresentations that Estavao Eusebio and his wife,

Francisca, were owners of the entire area under chalta nos. 34, 35 and

36 of P. T. Sheet No. 164 of City Survey. Even authorities neither

verified nor ascertained the correct area within ownership of the

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.           The development permission and

construction licence is surreptitiously granted behind back of the

Petitioner by asserting the area of 371 square metres of chalta No. 34 of

P.T. Sheet No. 164 and in gross violation of the ownership right of

Petitioner to area of 80 square metres. The Petitioner made complaint

to the Respondent-authority. The notice was issued by Respondent No.

1 and upon hearing the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by

Judgment dated 07.09.2021, Respondent No. 1 was pleased to revoke

Construction Licence No. 401/ 1/CCP/ENG/CONST-LIC-13/2020-

2021/44. Eventually, directions were given to remove the construction

carried out within the encroached area.


5.    Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Respondent

No.1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an Appeal before the

                              Page 4 of 12
                             17th August 2026
Secretary for Urban Development, the Appellate Authority, being

Municipal Appeal No. SEC/UD/126/2021, inter alia, seeking to quash

and set aside the said Order. The Petitioner vide his reply before the

Secretary, have supported the Order passed by Respondent No.1.

However, the Secretary for Urban Development, by the impugned

Order, allowed the Appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and

quashed and set aside the Order dated 07.09.2021 passed by

Respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that the Sale Deed dated

16.04.1984 continues to remain in force and, unless the said Sale Deed

is challenged and set aside by a competent authority, the Construction

Licence cannot be revoked. Further, there is serious dispute of title

which cannot be decided by Municipal Authorities.              Parties may

approach Civil Court.


6.     The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted

that the Construction Licence issued by Respondent No.1 and

Development     Permission   issued      by     GPPDA,   was    based   on

misrepresentations and false declarations. However, while passing the

impugned Order, the Secretary for Urban Development, shut its eyes to

the patent clout played by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has been

erroneously observed that the Municipal Authorities did not have

power or jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact

between the rival parties, particularly when the title of the Petitioner

                              Page 5 of 12
                             17th August 2026
itself was not in dispute. Learned Advocate further submits that such

an observation is wholly erroneous and proceeds on an incorrect

appreciation of the nature and scope of jurisdiction exercised by

Municipal Authorities.   In fact, it was for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

to demonstrate their ownership and possession over the area of 371

square metres for which they sought permission for construction.


7.    Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2

and 3, would submit that the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1984 itself

stipulates that Estavao and his wife Francisca were in possession of the

plot admeasuring 300.30 square metres along with land in excess of 80

square metres, which has been transferred to them by their vendors

under Sale Deed of 1965. There cannot be dispute that the Respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 were in authorised occupation of the entire property

including 80 square metres out of chalta no. 34 and accordingly, the

approval and Construction Licence came to be issued. The Sale Deed

dated 16.04.1984 has never been challenged by the Petitioner and

continues to remain valid and subsisting as on date. Even otherwise,

the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acquired the title for entire

additional area in their possession by way of adverse possession or

otherwise. The Petitioner could not produce any document of title in

respect of 80 square metres from chalta no. 34.



                              Page 6 of 12
                             17th August 2026
8.    Having considered the submissions advanced by learned

Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the

documents tendered into service, this Court finds that Petitioner-

Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, had transferred 300 square metres

and 30 square decimeters plot in favour of Roguvira Poi and his wife

Sumanbai Poi.    They transferred said plot under Sale Deed dated

16.04.1984 to Estavao and his wife Francisca. It is true that sale deed

refers to 80 square metres of land which is in possession of Roguvira

Poi and his wife Sumanbai Poi.            However, there is nothing to

demonstrate that the title of 80 square metres excess area in their

possession was transferred to them. The title of 80 square metres area

from chalta no. 34 remained with the Petitioner. The Respondent Nos.

2 and 3 obtained Construction Licence for 370 square metres area

claiming title on the basis of the Sale Deed of 1984. A perusal of

contents of Sale Deed of 1984 depicts that the vendors claimed their

ownership over 300 square metres area but they claimed that 80

square metres excess area is in their possession. The schedule of the

property in sale deed no where refers transaction property more than

300 square metres.     The     Goa Land Development and Building

Construction Regulations, 2010 (‘Regulations of 2010’) framed by

Government of Goa in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1)

and (2) of Section 4 of the Goa Act of 2008, prescribes procedure for


                              Page 7 of 12
                             17th August 2026
securing development permissions. Regulation 3.1 provides that every

development shall conform to provisions of the relevant Acts, Rules

and Regulations and no development shall be carried out without

obtaining prior permission. Regulation 3.2A prescribes Appendix A1,

an Application format, for development permission under Section 44 of

the TCP Act, 1974. The appendix A-1 indicates that the application is

to be made by the owner of the land along with drawings and

documents duly authenticated/signed and prescribed. Subsection (d)

of Clause 2 of appendix A-1 imply that a document showing ownership

of land are to be duly authenticated, signed, as prescribed and affidavit

from owner to be forwarded along with application form for

development permission. Regulation 2(95) defines the term ‘owner’

which suggests that a person/persons who holds sufficient interest or

title in such land or premises by virtue of being the holder of a title

deed or Government/Court declaring him/ them by owner. Sub-clause

(a) of Regulation 3.2D, reads thus :


       “(a) The right of ownership or interest in the land sufficient to
       enable the applicant to carry out the intended development
       supported by the following documents (wherever applicable).

           (i) Original Survey plan of the land from the Directorate
           of Land Survey/City Survey Office. For plots which are
           result of approved sub- division, a copy of the approved
           sub-division plan and/or reference number of the said
           approval from the Competent Authority including


                                  Page 8 of 12
                                 17th August 2026
          Technical Clearance,
          (ii) Copy of Index of Land in Form-III/Form-I & XIV of
          Records of Rights or any forms of City Survey Register,

          (iii) Copy of Sale/Gift/Lease/Mortgage deed and/or any
          other instrument or assignment:
            Provided that the Competent Authority may, if satisfied
          with other documents submitted, waive the production of
          any of these documents.”

9.    A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid documentary requirements to

be furnished along with application for development, would show that a

person must hold title or ownership or sufficient interest in the land to

be developed. The term ‘sufficient interest’ cannot be loosely held. The

sufficient interest may be the interest under long term lease,

development agreement, etc., derived from the original title holder.


10.   In present case, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not

demonstrate their title or sufficient interest over the disputed 80

square metres of area by any means.                 However, they projected

themselves to be owners of the land or authorities have erroneously

presumed them to be owners or authorised interest holders while

granting development permission. On complaint made by Petitioner,

Respondent No.1 verified title of the Petitioner over the property and

after satisfying that the permission was wrongly granted, on incorrect

information supplied along with the development application, revoked

development permission.

                                  Page 9 of 12
                                 17th August 2026
11.     The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jhalak

Constructions                vs.   Ulhasnagar            Municipal   Corporation 1,

observed that when Petitioners have misled Corporation and has

obtained permissions fraudulently, Municipal Authority being guardian

of the City and its planned development, owe a duty of removal of all

unauthorized or illegal constructions .


12.     Similarly, Division Bench of this Court in case of Imelda Dias

Souza E Silva vs. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary &

Ors.2, cancelled the development permission that was granted on

ignoring the right of the true owner by observing as under: -


          “… In the case at hand, the respondent no. 4 is claiming a
          “sufficient interest” in the land and not in the “premises”.
          Sub-clause (1), (2) and (3) sub-clause (ii) of Regulation 2(95)
          refers to “premises” and not land. Therefore, Confraria of
          Chapel-respondent no. 4 was not qualified “person” to seek
          development permission in terms of Section 44 of the Act of
          1974 read with Regulations of 2010. As a matter of fact, the
          PDA misdirected itself by relying on the Regulation 3.2D
          which prescribes documents to be submitted alongwith the
          Application seeking development permission. One of the
          documents, is copy of index of land in Form-III/Form-I &
          Form XIV of record of rights or any form of City of Survey
          register.   Thus, it appears that the PDA inadvertently or
          otherwise held the property extracts of chalta nos. 16 and 18,
          were demonstrating “sufficient interest” of the Confraria of
          Chapel, in the said lands and thereby committed a mistake in
1 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2790
2 (2022) 4 Bom CR 478

                                       Page 10 of 12
                                      17th August 2026
       granting the development permission, which is clearly visible
       from record.”

13.   A perusal of the impugned order depict that the Secretary for

Urban Development was of the view that there is dispute as to title

between the parties and that the Petitioner ought to have approached

the Civil Court and not the Municipal Authorities. This Court finds that

the aforesaid approach is fallacious, particularly when the development

Rules and Regulations requires the Municipal Authorities to satisfy

themselves as to the title or sufficient interest of the development of the

property.   The person in unauthorised possession of the property

cannot seek development permission without securing sufficient

interest from the true owner. The Municipal Authority is therefore

required to ascertain the right of Applicant in property sought to be put

under development.


14.   In the present case, the Respondent N0s. 2 and 3 may be in

possession of the property, however, their long standing possession,

would not authorise them to carry development over property owned

by Petitioner. In fact, it was incumbent for the Petitioner to establish

or assert declaration of his ownership or any claim by way of adverse

possession, if any. The Petitioner’s ownership over 80 square metres

land is reflected in property card of P. T. Sheet No. 164 in chalta No. 34,

which has not been disputed by the Respondents.


                                 Page 11 of 12
                                17th August 2026
                                 15.    In aforesaid backdrop, impugned Order cannot be sustained in

                                 law. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which

                                 reads thus :


                                         “(a) for a writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ,
                                         direction and/or Order ordering the quashing and/or setting aside
                                         of the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2023, passed by
                                         the Secretary for Urban Development, at Secretariat, Porvorim,
                                         Goa, in Municipal Appeal no. SEC/UD/126/2021 and thereby the
                                         complaint dated 30.06.2021 of the Petitioner be allowed.”


                                 16.    The petition is disposed of.


                                 17.    Rule stands discharged.




                                                                          S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.




                                                                   Page 12 of 12
                                                                  17th August 2026


Signed by: ANDREZA PEREIRA
Designation: Senior Private Secretary
to the Hon'ble Judge
Date: 18/08/2026 15:26:48