GAJANAN PEDNEKARversusTHE SECRETARY, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ARAMBOL AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1741
                                              (1)                          wp-67-2023.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                               WRIT PETITION NO.67 OF 2023

               Mr. Gajanan Pednekar,
               60 years, House No.272/2, Bamanbhati,
               Arambol, Pernem-Goa.                                ..Petitioner
                     Versus
               1.    The Secretary,
                     Village Panchayat of Arambol,
                     Pernem-Goa.
               2.    Mr. Sandesh Sadanand Naik,
                     Houuse No.273
                     Bamanbhati, Harmal,
                     Pernem-Goa.                                   ..Respondents
                                                …
               Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms. Komal Naik, Advocate for
               Petitioner.
               Mr. Prasad Shahapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar with Mr. Ronak Naik, Advocate for Respondent
               No.2.
                                                …
                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                RESERVED ON   :24th AUGUST, 2026.
                PRONOUNCED ON :28th AUGUST, 2026.

               JUDGMENT:-

               1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,

               matter is heard finally at admission stage.

               2.    The petitioner impugns Resolution dated 14.02.2020 passed by

               Village   Panchayat,     Arambol,     thereby    revoking      NOC           vide

               no.VPA/PER/2008-2009/917 dated 14.09.2008 and consequential

               communication dated 03.03.2020 addressed by Village Panchayat to

               Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Agarwada, Pernem for

               disconnection of electricity connection granted in favour of petitioner.
                               (2)                       wp-67-2023.odt



3.    The property bearing Survey No.79/43 was originally owned by

late Bhiwa Mahadev Naik.       His legal heirs transferred property to

Rameshchander Sharma, who constructed hotel premises and put

Shripad Dattaram Naik in possession. According to petitioner, Mr.

Shripad Dattaram Naik was running business of restaurant in name and

style as “Sadhana Hotel”, which is transferred to petitioner. In year

2009, petitioner applied to Panchayat for transfer of property tax in his

name and NOC was issued to him with House No.272(2) for electricity

connection. On the basis of said NOC petitioner had started business of

Bakery at the house.

4.    On 30.11.2019, complaint was filed by Mr. Sandesh Sadanand

Naik alleging that petitioner has misused NOC issued by Village

Panchayat and availed electricity connection in house bearing no.273.

The Village Panchayat issued show cause notice to petitioner which was

duly replied. A joint inspection is purported to be made at house

bearing nos.272(2) and 273 at Bamanbhati, Arambol in order to verify

complaint, wherein it was revealed that two house properties are

different and located at the distance of 20 feet from each other.

Eventually, Village Panchayat passed impugned Resolution to withdraw

NOC issued for electricity connection in favour of petitioner and issued

communication dated 03.03.2020 to Assistant Engineer, Electricity

Department for disconnection of electricity supply.
                               (3)                        wp-67-2023.odt



5.    Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for

petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for electricity connection

for House No.272(2) to start Bakery business. The NOC was issued by

Village Panchayat.      Accordingly, electricity connection has been

installed. The respondent no.2 contends that electricity connection is

installed at House No.273 on the basis of NOC given by Village

Panchayat. In fact, respondent no.2 is unconcerned with property in

possession of petitioner. The petitioner believes that his property is part

of Survey No.79/43 and Village Panchayat treated same as property in

name of Shripad Dattaram Naik through whom petitioner is claiming

right. The petitioner has not supplied any false information to Village

Panchayat nor NOC issued to petitioner is product of misrepresentation

or fraud.

6.    Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent submits

that petitioner has mislead Village Panchayat and Electricity

Department while installing electricity connection at House No.273 on

basis of NOC for house bearing no.272(2). The Village Panchayat has

caused joint inspection, wherein it is revealed that house property

nos.272(2) and 273 are different.

7.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties and perusal of record tendered into

service, it can be observed that respondent no.2 raised dispute as regards
                                   (4)                      wp-67-2023.odt



to NOC dated 14.09.2008 given by respondent no.1 in favour of

petitioner. Apparently, such dispute is raised in year 2019 under pretext

that petitioner has obtained NOC for electricity connection for House

No.272(2), but said electricity connection is fixed to house of petitioner

bearing No.273 which is illegal.

8.        Perusal of impugned Resolution depicts that on 12.12.2019 site

inspection was caused in order to verify complaint of respondent no.2.

During joint inspection, it is revealed that House Nos.272(2) and 273

shown by respondent no.2 are situated at distance of approximately 20

meters from each other. Pertinently, looking to the controversy involved

in this petition, this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 directed

Secretary of Village Panchayat to file an affidavit alongiwth supporting

record on following points:

     a.    Whether House No.272/2 exists in its record and if it is in

           existence, as against whose name is the same registered in

           records of panchayat.

     b.    If House No.272/2 is in existence, in which survey number

           of village Arambol, according to record of Panchayat does

           same fall in.

     c.    Whether House No.273 exists in records of Village

           Panchayat, Arambol and if it exists, in whose name does it

           stand and in which survey number of village does is fall.
                                (5)                      wp-67-2023.odt



      The Secretary was directed to produce survey plan alongwith

affidavit depicting specific location of these houses.

9.    In response to aforesaid directions, an affidavit is filed by Mr.

Rajat Chandrakant Narvekar, Secretary of Village Panchayat, who states

that House No.272/2 is registered in name of Shripad Dattaram Naik

and House No.273 is registered in name of Bhiwa Mahadev Naik.

There is no mention of survey numbers in record of demand and

collection register. There exist no survey plan in record of Panchayat to

depict specific location of these houses.

10.   The aforesaid affidavit clearly stipulates that Panchayat does not

possess survey record depicting location of House Nos.272/2 and 273.

Further there is nothing to show that electricity connection in name of

petitioner is installed to House No.273, as has been alleged by

respondent no.2. During course of arguments before this Court, it is

admitted on behalf of respondent no.2 that he is unconcerned with

property in possession of petitioner or even House No.273.                The

Panchayat appears to have blindly acted on complaint and

representation made by respondent no.2 and withdrew NOC which

existed for more than twelve years prior to date of complaint by

respondent no.2.     There is nothing to demonstrate that Electricity

Department has raised any objection as to the electricity supply /

connection granted to property in possession of petitioner.
                                 (6)                       wp-67-2023.odt



11.      This Court finds that petitioner had applied for electricity

connection for House No.272/2. The respondent no.1 had issued NOC

for same house. There is no foundational evidence to accept contention

of respondents that petitioner misused NOC and obtained electricity

connection to House No.273. The petitioner is claiming his right over

House No.272/2 on the basis of transfer made by Shripad Dattaram

Naik whose name appears in demand and collection register as against

House No.272(2). In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, impugned

order cannot be sustained in law.

12.      In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (A)

and (B).

13.      Needless to state here that, observations made hereinabove shall

not be impediment for respondents, in case proceeding is initiated

before Civil Court or any other competent Judicial/Quasi Judicial

Authority in respect of rights, title and possession of parties in relation

to House Nos.272/2 or 273.


                                          (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                   JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026