(1) wp-67-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.67 OF 2023 Mr. Gajanan Pednekar, 60 years, House No.272/2, Bamanbhati, Arambol, Pernem-Goa. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Village Panchayat of Arambol, Pernem-Goa. 2. Mr. Sandesh Sadanand Naik, Houuse No.273 Bamanbhati, Harmal, Pernem-Goa. ..Respondents … Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms. Komal Naik, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Prasad Shahapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar with Mr. Ronak Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON :24th AUGUST, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON :28th AUGUST, 2026. JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage. 2. The petitioner impugns Resolution dated 14.02.2020 passed by Village Panchayat, Arambol, thereby revoking NOC vide no.VPA/PER/2008-2009/917 dated 14.09.2008 and consequential communication dated 03.03.2020 addressed by Village Panchayat to Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Agarwada, Pernem for disconnection of electricity connection granted in favour of petitioner. 2026:BHC-GOA:1741 (2) wp-67-2023.odt 3. The property bearing Survey No.79/43 was originally owned by late Bhiwa Mahadev Naik. His legal heirs transferred property to Rameshchander Sharma, who constructed hotel premises and put Shripad Dattaram Naik in possession. According to petitioner, Mr. Shripad Dattaram Naik was running business of restaurant in name and style as “Sadhana Hotel”, which is transferred to petitioner. In year 2009, petitioner applied to Panchayat for transfer of property tax in his name and NOC was issued to him with House No.272(2) for electricity connection. On the basis of said NOC petitioner had started business of Bakery at the house. 4. On 30.11.2019, complaint was filed by Mr. Sandesh Sadanand Naik alleging that petitioner has misused NOC issued by Village Panchayat and availed electricity connection in house bearing no.273. The Village Panchayat issued show cause notice to petitioner which was duly replied. A joint inspection is purported to be made at house bearing nos.272(2) and 273 at Bamanbhati, Arambol in order to verify complaint, wherein it was revealed that two house properties are different and located at the distance of 20 feet from each other. Eventually, Village Panchayat passed impugned Resolution to withdraw NOC issued for electricity connection in favour of petitioner and issued communication dated 03.03.2020 to Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department for disconnection of electricity supply. (3) wp-67-2023.odt 5. Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for electricity connection for House No.272(2) to start Bakery business. The NOC was issued by Village Panchayat. Accordingly, electricity connection has been installed. The respondent no.2 contends that electricity connection is installed at House No.273 on the basis of NOC given by Village Panchayat. In fact, respondent no.2 is unconcerned with property in possession of petitioner. The petitioner believes that his property is part of Survey No.79/43 and Village Panchayat treated same as property in name of Shripad Dattaram Naik through whom petitioner is claiming right. The petitioner has not supplied any false information to Village Panchayat nor NOC issued to petitioner is product of misrepresentation or fraud. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent submits that petitioner has mislead Village Panchayat and Electricity Department while installing electricity connection at House No.273 on basis of NOC for house bearing no.272(2). The Village Panchayat has caused joint inspection, wherein it is revealed that house property nos.272(2) and 273 are different. 7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and perusal of record tendered into service, it can be observed that respondent no.2 raised dispute as regards (4) wp-67-2023.odt to NOC dated 14.09.2008 given by respondent no.1 in favour of petitioner. Apparently, such dispute is raised in year 2019 under pretext that petitioner has obtained NOC for electricity connection for House No.272(2), but said electricity connection is fixed to house of petitioner bearing No.273 which is illegal. 8. Perusal of impugned Resolution depicts that on 12.12.2019 site inspection was caused in order to verify complaint of respondent no.2. During joint inspection, it is revealed that House Nos.272(2) and 273 shown by respondent no.2 are situated at distance of approximately 20 meters from each other. Pertinently, looking to the controversy involved in this petition, this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 directed Secretary of Village Panchayat to file an affidavit alongiwth supporting record on following points: a. Whether House No.272/2 exists in its record and if it is in existence, as against whose name is the same registered in records of panchayat. b. If House No.272/2 is in existence, in which survey number of village Arambol, according to record of Panchayat does same fall in. c. Whether House No.273 exists in records of Village Panchayat, Arambol and if it exists, in whose name does it stand and in which survey number of village does is fall. (5) wp-67-2023.odt The Secretary was directed to produce survey plan alongwith affidavit depicting specific location of these houses. 9. In response to aforesaid directions, an affidavit is filed by Mr. Rajat Chandrakant Narvekar, Secretary of Village Panchayat, who states that House No.272/2 is registered in name of Shripad Dattaram Naik and House No.273 is registered in name of Bhiwa Mahadev Naik. There is no mention of survey numbers in record of demand and collection register. There exist no survey plan in record of Panchayat to depict specific location of these houses. 10. The aforesaid affidavit clearly stipulates that Panchayat does not possess survey record depicting location of House Nos.272/2 and 273. Further there is nothing to show that electricity connection in name of petitioner is installed to House No.273, as has been alleged by respondent no.2. During course of arguments before this Court, it is admitted on behalf of respondent no.2 that he is unconcerned with property in possession of petitioner or even House No.273. The Panchayat appears to have blindly acted on complaint and representation made by respondent no.2 and withdrew NOC which existed for more than twelve years prior to date of complaint by respondent no.2. There is nothing to demonstrate that Electricity Department has raised any objection as to the electricity supply / connection granted to property in possession of petitioner. (6) wp-67-2023.odt 11. This Court finds that petitioner had applied for electricity connection for House No.272/2. The respondent no.1 had issued NOC for same house. There is no foundational evidence to accept contention of respondents that petitioner misused NOC and obtained electricity connection to House No.273. The petitioner is claiming his right over House No.272/2 on the basis of transfer made by Shripad Dattaram Naik whose name appears in demand and collection register as against House No.272(2). In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 12. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (A) and (B). 13. Needless to state here that, observations made hereinabove shall not be impediment for respondents, in case proceeding is initiated before Civil Court or any other competent Judicial/Quasi Judicial Authority in respect of rights, title and possession of parties in relation to House Nos.272/2 or 273. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/August-2026