1. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner assails the Order dated 18th October 2024, passed by the Minister for Revenue (‘Appellate Authority’) in Case No. 2/8/8/2023-RD, upholding the Order dated 18th January 2023, passed by Respondent No. 1, Deputy Collector & S.D.O-I, Bardez Sub-Division, Mapusa, Goa, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for regularisation of the unauthorised structure in Survey P.T. Sheet 13, Chalta No. 18, 58/2, 3, 4, 7 and 9, admeasuring 650 sq. mtrs., at Cuchelim, Mapusa, Goa (‘said property’).

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

                   3.1. On 17th July 2018, the Petitioner, claiming to be in absolute possession of the said property as the owner, applied for the regularisation of the house structure on the said property under the Goa Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction Act, 2016 (‘the Act’).

                   3.2. The Petitioner relied on several documents, including the Form B dated 12th February 1988 and 07th March 1988, issued to both his father, Mr Subrai Arjun Harmalkar, and himself under Rule 2(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules, 1969, which showed his father to be in possession of the said property since 1988, in support of his claim. He also relied on the Zoning Certificate dated 11th April 2022, issued by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (‘NGPDA’), which stated that the said property was within the Settlement S1 Zone as per the Outline Development Plan of 2021.

                   3.3. The Respondent No. 1-Deputy Collector called for the reports from the Inspector of Survey & Land Records ('ISLR') and the Forest Department. The house structure received clearance for regularisation from the ISLR and the Forest Department.

                   3.4. Respondent No. 2, a resident of the area, filed an objection to the Petitioner’s regularisation application on 25th August 2022, stating that the construction was carried out after the cut-off date, i.e., 28th February 2014, as specified in the Act.

                   3.5. The Respondent No. 1-Deputy Collector, by Order dated 18th January 2023, rejected the Petitioner’s regularisation application, on the ground that the Petitioner failed to produce any documents to prove his ownership, as well as No Objection from the original owner.

                   3.6. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Case No. 2/8/8/2023-RD on 08th March 2023 before the Minister of Revenue, the Appellate Authority.

                   3.7. During the pendency of the appeal, on 03rd August 2023, the Petitioner instituted a suit bearing RCS No. 148/2023/C before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, which is yet pending, seeking a declaration of ownership, as the only ground on which his regularisation application was rejected was non-production of ownership documents. The copy of the plaint was placed before the Appellate Authority on 26th September 2024.

                   3.8. On 18th October 2024, by way of the impugned Order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal, thereby upholding the Respondent No.1-Deputy Collector’s Order dated 18th January 2023, rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation of the house structure in the said property.

4. Mr Preetam Talaulikar, learned counsel, appeared for the Petitioner and Mr Iftikhar Agha, learned counsel, appeared for Respondent No.2.

5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

                   5.1. Mr Talaulikar submitted that the impugned Order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

                   5.2. That the Appellate Authority misinterpreted Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

                   5.3. That the Petitioner constructed his house in 1992, which is registered in the records of Mapusa Municipality and numbered as House No. 179/1. The Petitioner constructed the first floor, of which regularisation is sought, in 2004, i.e., before the cut-off date - 28th February 2014, as specified in the Act.

                   5.4. That the Appellate Authority failed to consider that, even though there was no entry in the Survey Forms showing the Petitioner as the owner of the subject properties, he was the owner by operation of law, as he had been in possession of the property since 1988, as proved by the Order of Possession (Form B) issued by the Inspector of Cadastral Survey and Settlement Officer, Mapusa, Goa.

                   5.5. That according to Articles 526 and 527 read with Article 510 of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, the Petitioner’s possession has become definite and he has acquired title in the property by prescription, irrespective of such possession being in good faith or bad faith.

                   5.6. That the property is now earmarked as Settlement S1 Zone as per the Outline Development Plan, 2021, and as such, the structure cannot be termed as illegal but irregular, which is otherwise legal but short of permission.

                   5.7. That the Appellate Authority failed to consider that a Civil Suit for declaration of ownership, instituted by the Petitioner, is pending adjudication.

                   Mr Talaulikar, thus, prays that the petition be allowed.

6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2:

                   6.1. Mr Agha submitted that neither the impugned Order nor the Order passed by Respondent No. 1, the Deputy Collector, suffers from any illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety that would warrant this Court’s interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

                   6.2. That the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts, including Demolition Orders issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council, Orders issued by the NGPDA dismissing regularisation applications, and the Order of the Municipal Appellate Tribunal.

                   6.3. That the Petitioner is not the owner of the property but only has a possessory right in the same. Neither did he produce any documents to prove his ownership, nor did he produce an NOC from the original owner.

                   6.4. That the structure for which regularisation was sought by the Petitioner was built after the cut-off date - 28th February 2014, as specified under the Act, and hence, the same cannot be regularised.

                   6.5. That the Petitioner has carried out illegal construction on various agricultural properties at Cunchelim, Mapusa, without obtaining permission/license from competent authorities.

                   6.6. That several complaints were lodged by the Respondent No. 2 and one Mr Narulla Mulla, a resident of Cunchelim, Mapusa, with the authorities concerned against the illegal construction carried out by the Petitioner, including against the 1st floor of the house structure of which regularisation is sought.

                   6.7. That by order dated 27th October 2021, the Mapusa Municipal Council directed demolition of the 1st floor of the house structure, as it was illegal. The same was upheld by the Municipalities Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, Goa, by Order dated 30th September 2025.

                   Hence, Mr Agha prays that the petition be dismissed.

ANALYSIS:

7. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of the Act under which the Petitioner has sought regularisation of his structure.

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

8. A plain reading of the provision under which unauthorised construction may be regularised under the Act indicates that the person seeking such regularisation must be the absolute owner of the property or hold it jointly with other co-owners. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been unable to produce any documents establishing his title to the said property. It is also admitted that the Petitioner and his wife have instituted a Regular Civil Suit bearing No.148/2023/C before the Civil Judge Senior Division, at Mapusa Goa, against one Fr. Gualberto Luis D'Souza and Ms Mary D'Cruz, seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property by adverse possession under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As averred in the plaint, the suit was filed on 18th January 2023, following the rejection by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bardez Goa, of the Petitioner’s regularisation application. This clearly indicates that at the time of filing the application for regularisation of the unauthorised structure, the Petitioner's ownership of the suit premises was not established.

9. The property card extract for the said property clearly indicates that the Petitioners are in cultivatory possession of the property. The title to the property vests in Ms Mary D'Cruz. The Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, Goa. Mr Talaulikar contended that, since his title to the property is sub judice before the Civil Court, there is no restraint on the Authorised Officer from regularising the unauthorised construction. He relied on Section 3(7) of the Act.

10. Section 3(6) of the Act specifically prohibits the Authorised Officer from entertaining any application or proceed with the regularisation process of unauthorised construction where the title or ownership of the property/land upon which unauthorised construction is carried out, is a subject matter of a dispute before any Court, Tribunal or any Statutory Authority, in case the Court, Tribunal or Statutory Authority has passed an injunction order against such property. However, in the event that no such Injunction order is granted against such property, and the authorised person proceeds to pass any regularisation order, the same shall be subject to the decision of the concerned Court. This clause does not vest power in the Authorised Officer to regularise the unauthorised structure, but merely provides that, in case such a regularisation order is passed, it is always subject to the outcome of the suit. Mr Talaulikar's interpretation of the provision is clearly incorrect. Similarly, Mr Talaulikar's contention that mere pendency of the suit is sufficient to establish his title to the said property is also misconceived. Moreover, the fact that the Petitioner instituted the suit seeking a declaration of his ownership only after his regularisation application was rejected speaks volumes.

11. Mr Agha has also drawn my attention to the Application- cum self-declaration filed by the Petitioner for regularisation of the unauthorised construction under Section 3(1) of the Act. In clause No.6(c) of the application, the Petitioner has misrepresented his connection with the property as his own property. Thus, Mr Agha has argued that the Petitioner has deliberately attempted to mislead the Authorised Officer regarding his status in relation to the said property. It appears that the Petitioner has portrayed himself as owner of the property while seeking regularisation. Such conduct on the part of the Petitioner is unacceptable.

12. Mr Talaulikar canvassed the argument that the unauthorised construction was carried out prior to the cut-off date provided for in the Act, which is 28th February 2014, and thus, according to him, any unauthorised construction made prior to the cut-off date is eligible for regularisation. He has relied upon a document at Page 59 of the petition, which is a letter dated 2nd March 2022, addressed to the Deputy Collector by the Range Forest Officer, Panaji, Goa, whereby the said Officer has furnished a joint inspection report pertaining to the said construction. The subject of the letter is 'Application for Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction Act, 2016, Ref. DC/MAP/REGLSN/1-260/2018 dated 6th December 2021. Hence, Mr Talaulikar submits that the construction existed even prior to 2021. He then points to a letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Member Secretary of the NGPDA, dated 26th July 2018, which also refers to minor maintenance and repair works carried out by the Petitioner on the first floor of his house, which was constructed earlier, by obtaining a repair licence bearing No. ENGG/F.62/7991/04 from the Mapusa Municipal Council. On this basis, Mr Talaulikar says that the said repair permission shows that the construction of the first floor is prior to the cut-off date. Notwithstanding that the unauthorised construction sought to be regularised is presumed to be prior to the cut-off date, the Petitioner's construction does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 3(1)(a) to (h) of the Act. The Petitioner's claim that the unauthorised structure existed prior to the cut-off date does not bring the same within the conditions of (a) to (h) of Section 3(1) of the Act.

13. Mr Talaulikar has overlooked the list of unauthorised constructions that are enumerated in the said provisions themselves, which can be considered for regularisation. Needless to state, his structure does not fall within the scope and ambit of any of the constructions listed in the provision, as he is unable to corroborate his ownership claim to the said property.

14. The documents on record filed by the Respondent, along with his reply affidavit, also demonstrate that the Petitioner does not have any permission or approval from the competent authorities to carry out the construction. In fact, the NGPDA had called upon the Petitioner to furnish the approved building plan for the construction, along with ownership documents, if any. The Mapusa Municipal Corporation had also conducted a site inspection of the premises and observed that the compound wall constructed by the Petitioner with laterite stone blocked the Municipal drain and had issued a stop-work notice. Thereafter, the Mapusa Municipal Council issued a demolition order for the unauthorised first-floor construction of the property. The Petitioner had preferred an appeal against the demolition order issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council before the Municipalities Appellate Tribunal of Goa, at Panaji, which was dismissed vide order dated 30th September 2025. The Petitioner's other attempts to regularise the unauthorised construction by making applications before other authorities have also failed. The Deputy Collector, after affording the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2 an opportunity of hearing, dismissed the application as the Petitioner was unable to produce ownership documents pertaining to the construction. In fact, the Deputy Collector also observed that the Form D of PT sheet No.13 of the relevant Survey Numbers showed the name of the Petitioner's father in the other remarks column as being in ‘cultivatory possession.’ Thereafter, the possession of the property came into the hands of the Petitioner and others.

15. Mr Talaulikar then submitted that the Petitioner is a co-owner of the said property. Even assuming this to be true, the Deputy Collector observed that none of the alleged co-owners has furnished an NOC or consent to seek regularisation of the construction.

16. The Petitioner then appealed the order before the Minister, who also concurred with the findings of the Deputy Collector and held that the Deputy Collector's insistence on the ownership documents and/or consent of co-owners was justified. The Minister thus dismissed his appeal.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, I have found no infirmity in the impugned orders. The Petitioner has failed to establish ownership, whether individual or otherwise, that would entitle him to benefit from the provisions of the Act and to regularise the unauthorised construction. Alternatively, even accepting the Petitioner as a co-owner of the structure as per his claim, he has failed to obtain an NOC/consent from his alleged co-owners. The Petitioner is thus not entitled to seek regularisation of the unauthorised construction on the first floor of his house property. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

18. The rule is discharged.