logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 1952 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
Case No : Writ Petition No. 810 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR
Parties : Jaden Mikael Monteiro Versus The Village Panchayat of Camorlim, Through its Secretary, Goa & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Nigel Da Costa Frias, with Shan Coutinho, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Anthony Joe D’Silva, with Kimberley Gracias, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026
Head Note :-
Panchayat Raj Act - Section 66 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-GOA 1558,
Judgment :-

Oral Judgment:

Valmiki Menezes, J.

1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Rule

4. Mr. Anthony Joe D’Silva, learned Advocate waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

5. Relief sought in this petition is for the direction to the Village Panchayat of Camorlim -Respondent No.1 to issue a construction license under Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj Act in terms of the technical clearance dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Senior Town Planner, Margao.

6. On the construction/development plan being filed before the Senior Town Planner, Margao, the aforementioned technical clearance was granted with certain conditions attached to the grant of approval. Based on this, the Petitioner had approached the Village Panchayat way back on 28.03.2025 seeking construction license in terms of the approval. This Petition initially seeks mandamus to the Panchayat to seek a direction to grant a construction license on the pending application; however by communication dated 11.06.2026 the Panchayat rejected the application for license, which was challenged by way of amendment to the petition under relief clause of ‘a’ of the petition.

7. An affidavit came to be filed by the Panchayat, initially claiming that the license was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not removed an existing compound wall which fell in the road widening area; however, it is a matter of record that the said wall has been removed and cannot act as an impediment for grant of license.

8. In the second application of the Panchayat as also in the communication dated 11.06.2026 impugned in the petition, the Panchayat now takes a stand that the technical approval granted by the Town Planner is inappropriate for the Village of Camorlim since the village is designated as an area falling in VP2 having a permissible Floor Area of 60% and maximum building height of 9 meters.

9. The fact remains that the Village Panchayat on its own has not challenged the order of technical clearance granted by the Town Planner and it is only the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.783 of 2026(F), who has challenged the grant of technical clearance.

10. In our opinion, the reason cited by the Panchayat cannot be countenanced on the face of the fact that the Town Planner has granted a technical clearance which as of today stands and is not challenged by any person nor has been set aside. In that view of the matter, the construction license must be granted by the Panchayat.

11. We find, however, that on the grant of the license and if a construction is erected, the same would be subject to the outcome of the challenge raised by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.783 of 2026(F) or to such challenge the Panchayat may throw on the technical clearance granted by the Town Planner.

12. Consequently, we quash and set aside the communication dated 11.06.2026 issued by the Village Panchayat of the Camorlim and direct the Secretary of the said Village Panchayat to issue the construction license to the Petitioner by 12.08.2026. Since the Panchayat is represented before us, no further communication is required and the Secretary shall act upon the directions of this Court.

13. Rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clause ‘a’ and ‘aa’ of the petition.
 
  CDJLawJournal