SHRI SOMNATH K. RAIKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shri Somnath K. Raikar
STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS
Click here to view full judgement.
F.M. Reis, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. V.A. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) The challenge in the above petition is to the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3/Comunidade in forwarding the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of plot No. 25 applied way back in the year 1998 in the property belonging to the respondent No. 3/Comunidade. In the alternative the petitioner has also prayed for the relief which reads thus:
"(aa) by writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction direct or order the respondent No. 2 to consider the grant of plot No. 48 to the petitioner as per the documentation and the rate of land applied for plot No. 25 including the cost of development and forward the file No. 1-2-2012/ACNZ/2012 along with notice of vacancy of plot No. 48 for the approval of grant of plot of the land in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) The matter was heard at length. The main contention of Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that all the formalities for the allotment of the subject plot No. 25 were duly complied with and the matter was referred to the Dy. Collector for obtaining the requisite sanction in terms of the Code of Comunidade. The learned counsel further pointed out that somewhere in the year 2002, the respondent No. 3 sent a notice to the petitioner to disclose his willingness to proceed with the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of such plot. The learned counsel has also pointed out that immediately thereafter reply was filed showing the willingness of the petitioner to pursue the application for allotment of the plot. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner learnt that the subject plot was being notified as vacant plot to seek application for allotment wherein the respondent No. 4 had submitted his application. It is further submitted that the petitioner also learnt under the Right to Information Act that the Dy. Collector had returned application for allotment of plot of the petitioner to the Administrator to submit a report as to whether the plot was notified as vacant. It is further submitted that as such unless and until the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of plot is duly decided by the concerned authorities, the action on the part of the respondent No. 3 to allot the plot to the respondent No. 4 is null and void and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further points out that during the pendency of the above petition, there was an interim order in operation whereby as the subject plot No. 25 was in the process of being allotted to the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 was directed to keep one plot bearing No. 48 vacant to be made available in case any relief is granted in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that as admittedly the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of plot had yet been decided, direction be issued to the respondent No. 3 to process the application and submit the report to the Collector on the allotment of the plot to the petitioner. The learned counsel as such submits that necessary directions be issued with that regard.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.