2009 (3) TMI 1103 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include illegal construction on a property, jurisdiction of the Dy. Director of Panchayats, appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the property, burden of proof in proving legality of construction, and the powers of the Dy. Director u/s 66(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act.

Illegal Construction Issue:
The Petitioner filed an application claiming mundkar status while the property owner alleged illegal construction by the Petitioner. The Dy. Director found the construction to be illegal and ordered its demolition. The Director of Panchayats upheld this decision, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition challenging the orders.

Jurisdiction of Dy. Director:
The Petitioner argued that the Dy. Director acted illegally in appointing a Commissioner to inspect the property. However, the Court found that the appointment was within the Dy. Director's powers u/s 239(A) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. The Court deemed the proceedings as quasi-judicial and justified the appointment to ascertain factual details.

Burden of Proof Issue:
The Court addressed the burden of proof, stating that the onus lies on the constructor to prove legality, not on the complainant to prove illegality. As the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of permission for the construction, the Court upheld the decision of the Dy. Director regarding the demolition.

Powers of Dy. Director u/s 66(5) Issue:
The Court clarified that u/s 66(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act, if the Panchayat fails to act on illegal construction complaints, the Dy. Director is empowered to assume the Panchayat's powers and take necessary steps for demolition. In this case, since the Panchayat did not act on complaints, the Dy. Director's intervention was deemed appropriate.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no illegality in the orders passed by the Dy. Director and the Director of Panchayats. The Petitioner's failure to prove the legality of the construction led to the affirmation of the demolition order. No costs were awarded in this matter.