Petition against construction at Old Goa filed in High Court
HERALD REPORTER
PANJIM, APRIL 15
A construction carried out by M/s Madkaikar Realtors Pvt Ltd, at Ella in Old Goa, has been challenged before High Court.
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Friday directed M/s Madkaikar Realtors Pvt Ltd, to reply to allegations made in the petition pertaining to a construction at Ela Village in Old Goa.
A Division Bench of Justice S J Vazifdar and Justice N A Britto issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by one Vishwanath Naik who challenged the permissions granted by Town and Country Planning Department and Se-Old Goa Village Panchayat to a construction made by the company in Survey No. 102/1 and 102/2 of Ela village.
The petitioner has raised the objection saying that permission for the construction was granted during a period when Cumbarjua MLA Pandurang Madkaikar was director of the company while his wife was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, in the original approved plan permission was granted for a structure consisting only of ground plus two upper storeys. But now a ground plus four-storey structure has been built.
It is also alleged that disputed structure has a setback of only 24 metres from the national highway when under the law a setback of 30 meters has to be maintained, the petition claimed.
The Senior Counsel Saresh Lotlikar who represented the petitioner told the court that the authorities have misused their powers by allowing the construction which is not in conformity with Planning Regulations of 2000 and the Building Bye-laws.
“The entire construction is in contravention of the plans originally approved,” he alleged seeking direction to the authorities to cancel all the permissions granted to the construction. Senior Counsel Atmaram Nadkarni appearing on behalf of the respondent company told the court that petition has been filed because of political rivalry between the ex-transport minister and the petitioner. He told the court that shops built have already been sold to third parties and requested the Court to grant time to file an affidavit-in-reply.
The Division Bench thereafter directed the company to file a reply to the petition. It also made it clear that if any further third party rights are created, then the company shall do so by informing the purchasers about pendency of the petition and adjourned hearing till June.
