ALL ABOUT PUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION 737 OF 2011 AND HOW IT FELL SHORT OF
FLYING :-)
http://www.goasu-raj.org/gen/articles/107.asp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2011
Shri. Floriano Conceicao Lobo, ... Petitioner
R/o. H.No. 173,
Pirazona, Moira, Bardez, Goa.
Versus
State of Goa through
the Chief Secretary and 13 other ... Respondents.
Petitioner in Person.
Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent No.1, 9 and 14.
Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Mr. S.D. Padiyar and Mr. P. Arolkar, Advocates for Respondent No.10.
CORAM: V.M. KANADE & .U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
DATE: 29TH. JANUARY, 2013
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:
1. That the Respondent No. 2 be ordered to stop the construction
activity/work forthwith until the disposal of this petition.
2. That the respondent nos. 3 to 7 and respondents nos. 12 and 13 should
lose all their rights as tenants w.r.t. the said two properties respectively
for their complicity and connivance with respondent no.2 and respondent no.8
to pass on the property to the respondent no.2 to be developed and benefit
from it.
3. That as the said two properties belong to the common pool of lands of
respondent no.8 the respondent no. 14 the Mamlatdar of Bardez be ordered to
re-allot the lands to any Gaonkar of the Mapusa Comunidade, [the respondent
no.8 herein] as cultivator, and in case there are more than one Gaonkars
willing/interested to take the properties for cultivation, the same should
be auctioned to the highest bidder.
4. That the Judgment, Order and Decree in Special Civil Suit No. 121/2007/A
dated 2.4.2008 and the decree Special Civil Suit No. 108/2009/C dated
3/1/2010 be made null and void.
5. That the name of Raojee Rane, Respondent no.2 herein be struck off the
property cards of Survey Nos. P.T. Sheet 145 - 2/8-A and P.T. Sheet 163- 5/4
respectively.
3. The petitioner is the resident of Moira and a member of the Comunidade of
Moira. It is the case of the petitioner that certain agricultural properties
situated within the
4. limits of city of Mapusa and belonging to respondent no.8, the Comunidade
of Mapusa are conveyed in favour of the owner of the said property, as a
result of the consent decree being passed in the Special Civil Suit No.
121/2007/A. The said suit was filed by respondent no.2 against respondents
no. 3 to 8 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa. It is
alleged that the Consent Terms were filed and decree was obtained by
respondent no.2. It is further alleged the thereafter on the basis of the
said decree, the entries in the Record of Rights were changed and now the
respondent no.2 proposes to convert the said agricultural land and construct
buildings on the said property. It is submitted that the said action on the
part of respondent no.2 and others is contrary to various orders passed by
this Court prohibiting conversion of agricultural tenanted lands.
5. In our view, this petition is ot maintainable, firstly, since it contains
disputed questions of facts, secondly, the petitioner has alternate
efficacious remedy of approaching the appropriate forum and thirdly, the
petitioner has no locus since he is neither a member of the Comunidade of
Mapusa nor is he affected in any manner with the said conversion of
agricultural tenanted lands. The petitioner may either challenge the consent
terms before the Civil Court, if permitted by law or take recourse to any
other proceedings before the appropriate forum.
6. All contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents are kept
open.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
V.M. KANADE, J.
U.V. BAKRE, J.
AP/-
CERTIFIED COPY
Date on which copy was applied for: 04.02.2013
Date on which application was completed: 04.02.2013
Date given for taking delivery: 11.02.2013
Date on which copy was ready: 05.02.2013
Date on which copy was delivered: 15.02.2013
COST OF CERTIFIED COPY
Copying and comparing charges: Rs. 30.00
Search and inspection charges: Rs. 5.00
__________
Total fees: Rs. 35.00
SEAL
Sd/-
Section Officer
High Court of Bombay at Goa
Panaji-Goa
History of how this Petition came about.
1. Under the Supreme Court'S judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132/2011 @ SLP(C)
NO. 3109/2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC NO. 19869 of
2010) on the encroachments on Goa\'s community lands (Comunidades) by
Justice Markhandey Katju, I complained to the Chief Secretary of Goa about
the development of Mapusa's paddy field belonging to the Comunidade of
Mapusa being built on for commercial purposes in violation of the above
order and that he should issue a stop work notice immediately. He forwarded
my complaint to the relevant authorities and they, in turn, sat on it,
passing the buck as usual.
2. I, from my end, pursued the matter through filing RTIs and obtaining from
the authorities like Mamlatdar, TCP, Deputy Collector, Municipal Council
etc, all details relevant to the two properties belonging to the Comunidade
of Mapusa being handed over to the Builder from Pune. One property was the
paddy field at Morod, Mapusa, adjacent to the AJAY SUPERMARKET bearing
survey number 5/4 of PT Sheet 163, having an area of 4100 sq meters. The
other being again a paddy field located opposite the Police Station, Mapusa,
bearing survey no. as 2/8-A of PT sheet 145 having an approx area of 2359 sq
meters. After finding gross falsification in the way the property had
changed hands from tenant to tenant and ultimately to the Builder from Pune,
getting possession of a Comunidade land, and before the Conversion Sanad was
obtained, and considering how the Tenant/s have received money from the
Builder to declare that their names were falsely included etc etc to get the
Consent Decrees from the Civil Court in favour of the Builder, I filed the
above PUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION 737 OF 2011 IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT
GOA as above, putting all the above facts before the Hon. HC.
3. I supplied to the HC all the information on how one tenant passed on the
tenancy to another person by declaring that his name/s were wrongly
included. How the newly included tenant declares to the Civil Court that his
name/s are wrongly included after going through the process of including his
name, going through the mutation process and then declaring that his name is
falsely or wrongly included, all this for heavy monetary considerations, of
course, which run into crores of rupees.
4. I informed the Hon. HC that the land/s concerned are paddy fields, that I
am not a member of Mapusa Comunidade, but a member of another Comunidade,
that the Comunidade has itself ( previous managing committee) colluded with
the Builder to sell its own property through fraud for personal monetary
gains. This was corroborated by the new managing committee of the
Comunidade, even going to the extent of proving the fraud to the
Administrator of Comunidades and also making Police Complaints. However,
when the heat was turned on the Comunidade's new managing committee to stand
by it's findings how these paddy fields landed in the lap of one Raojee Rane
of Pune, the new managing committee reversed it's position to my surprise
and told the HC in it's affidavit that the petitioner had no locus standi
and that the Petition should be dismissed.
5. I have always appeared in person for my petition with the HC and this
being the 9th one, things did not change. At the final argument, there were
a slew of Advocates for the various Respondents including the Comunidade of
Mapusa.
6. When Justice Kanade - Bakre Bench informed me that my Petition was not
maintainable as I was not the member of the Comunidade of Mapusa, my
response was: Your Lordship, I am a concerned Citizen of Goa and I have only
pointed out gross illegalities and collusion between the Owner (Comunidade
of Mapusa) and the Builder, a rank outsider, to pass on the COMMUNITY
PROPERTIES illegally, without following the set procedures stipulated by the
CODE OF COMUNIDADES to defraud the Comunidade of Mapusa of it own properties
for personal monetary gains. I drew the attention of the Bench to the
EXHIBIT 'X' in my additional Rejoinder to the Affidavit filed by the
Comunidade of Mapusa explaining that the Comunidade itself (new Managing
Committee) has termed the transfer of these lands as well as the Consent
Decrees obtained from the Civil Court, a fraud, that the Affidavit of the
Comunidade of Mapusa is totally a reversed position of what EXHIBIT 'X'
details, where the COMUNIDADE of Mapusa is reversing its statement made in
EXHIBIT X through the AFFIDAVIT. That the Affidavit is false and must be
penalized, etc etc. I even pointed out to the Hon. Bench that the Hon. Court
itself has ordered that no paddy fields or agricultural lands could be
converted vide it's own order in WP-71 of 2000 and WP-291 of 2000.
7. My almost twenty minutes of arguing with the Hon. HC Division Bench was
to no avail and the Petition has been disposed at the Admitting state.
Therefore, I am going on record to say that the LAW IS BLIND and CANNOT SEE
THE CORRUPTION EVEN IF IT IS PLACED IN FRON OF IT.
In fact, I feel that the HC should have taken up this case of fraud ON SUO
MOTTO BASIS and saved Mapusa's Paddy Fields from slaughter, thereby setting
a precedent to SAVE GOA'S PADDY FIELDS AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
The other argument forwarded by the Respondents is that the area comes under
the ODP of Mapusa City and is marked as C1 [Commercial]
My argument was that if it was so, then it cannot be done in view of HC's
own orders against conversion of paddy fields in WP 71 of 2000 and WP 291 of
2000 and in the absence of these paddy field being acquired by the
government for public utility such as multi-storied car-park, a garden, etc.
When the Hon. Bench told me that I could approach appropriate forum or
forums for redressal, I told the Hon. Bench that I did not know of any other
appropriate forum and that this Hon. HC was most appropriate to decide this
case.
But all that was in vain.
BEHOLD THE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA as first
mentioned.
SO MUCH FOR FIGHTING AGAINST OPEN CORRUPTION
How then do we GOANS want GOA to be SAVED??
Cheers
floriano
goasuraj
9890470896
www.goasu-raj.org
floriano.l...@gmail.com
Twitter@flory29
f...@floriano.lobo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goa Su-Raj Party strongly believes that Parliamentary Elections must be
contested by National Parties only AND/OR by a Federation of State
Regional Parties.
with a reciprocating understanding by the National Parties that the 'State
Elections' shall be the prerogative of State Registered Political Parties
only. Even then, and in the absence of such a ruling by the Election
Commission of India, GSRP would want GOANS who are ERUDITE,
knowledgeable about India and its problems, as well as World affairs,
'STATESMEN/WOMEN' , to contest on it's 'TICKET' in the coming 2014
Parliamentary Elections. Let GOA endeavour to send two real Parliamentarians
to the House of the People in New Delhi for once.
