38-WP-180-2025.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.180/2025 KRISHANA NAVU VARAK … PETITIONER Versus THE CHIEF OFFICER, BICHOLIM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS Mr Samir Taleigaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Pedro Antonio Rocha, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 17th JUNE 2025 P.C. : 1. he petitioner impugns the Judgment dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Municipal Tribunal upholding a demolition order issued by the Bicholim Municipal Council under sub-section 13 of Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1969. 2. he concerned Mamlatdar has issued a show cause notice dated 25.08.2021 to the petitioner alleging therein that he has constructed a shed admeasuring 3 x 9 mtrs. adjoining his house, in a land bearing Survey No.110/9, of village Bordem. No reply was iled to the show cause notice. An order of demolition came to be passed on 14.03.2022 relying upon a transgression report prepared by the Municipal Engineer which referred to the exact dimensions of the infringing structure and materials used for the construction. 17th June 2025 38-WP-180-2025.DOC 3. In an appeal iled by the petitioner before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal bearing Municipal Appeal No.15/2022, a ground was taken that the structure in question was part of the petitioner’s mundkarial house. Reliance was placed on an order of the Mamlatdar registering the petitioner as mundkar with respect to a house bearing House No.141/1 in the said survey number admeasuring 88 sq.mtrs. here is no license produced for construction of the shed structure nor is any survey plan produced to demonstrate that the said shed structure which is 27 sq.mtrs. forms part of the area registered as a mundkarial house admeasuring 88 sq. mtrs. 4. he Municipal Appellate Tribunal has considered all these factors and has conirmed the demolition order, holding that there was no material produced by the petitioner to substantiate the existence of the structure which forms part of the demolition order. he indings are based upon the record that cannot be faulted with. Even before this Court, no material has been produced other than the registration order to contend that the shed forms part of the mundkarial structure. here is no reason to interfere with the order of the Municipal Appellate Tribunal in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. he petition is dismissed. No cost. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 17th June 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 18/06/2025 17:15:30