The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that that the Gram Sabha has no statutory authority under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to object to, grant, or recommend the revocation of a No Objection Certification (NOC) for property development. A plain reading of Section 6 of the 1994 Act, which defines the functions of the Gram Sabha, does not vest it with any such power.
The Court relied on its previous decision in Meenakshi Financial Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs Village Panchayat of Orlim, Salcete, Goa [2009(4) ALL MR 8], which established that there is no provision in the Panchayat Raj Act permitting the Gram Sabha to grant, revoke, or interfere with such permissions.
The power of a Panchayat to revoke a permit is circumscribed by Rule 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules 1971, added the Court, while pointing out that the revocation is only permissible if there has been a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact in the application. Since no such misrepresentation was alleged, the revocation was legally untenable.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the Impugned Communication revoking the final No Objection Certification (NOC), based solely on the Gram Sabha’s objection, is contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and its associated rules, making it bad in law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the NOC was revoked a year after its issuance, during which time the Petitioners had acted upon it, paid the requisite fees, and created third-party rights in the property. Further, the revocation was based solely on a “strong objection” from the Gram Sabha, with no other reason or cause provided in the impugned communication.
The Bench noted a clear contravention of the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard before the revocation, which adversely affected the valuable rights created in their favour and in favour of the third-party purchasers.
The Bench therefore, found no allegation in the impugned communication that the Petitioners had made any false statements or misrepresentations, which are the grounds for revocation under Rule 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules 1971.
Briefly, the petitioners are the owners of a property at Verna Village, which they purchased via a Sale Deed. They applied to the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP) for the sub-division of the property and received a provisional technical clearance. Later, the petitioners also sought and obtained a NOC for the sub-division from the Respondent no. 1, the Village Panchayat of Verna.
After carrying out the sub-division, the TCP granted a final technical clearance, and subsequently, the Village Panchayat issued a final NOC, for which the Petitioners paid fees of Rs. 1.41 Lakh. Acting on the final NOC, the petitioners proceeded to sell portions of the property to third parties.
Later, the Secretary of the Village Panchayat issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners, questioning why the final NOC should not be revoked, citing a complaint and a decision by the Gram Sabha. Despite the petitioners’ reply, the Secretary issued the Impugned Communication, revoking the final NOC. This communication is the subject of the writ petition.
Appearances:
Advocates Parag Rao and Akhil Parrikar, for the Petitioner
Advocate Athnain Naik, for the Respondent
