Facts: A writ petition was filed challenging orders passed by the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Goa, which had set aside an order by the Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, directing the demolition/removal of Shridhar Building, deemed to be in a ruinous condition. The building, consisting of over 20 commercial establishments, was subject to multiple reports indicating structural instability. The erstwhile owner had applied for demolition based on a Goa College of Engineering report from 2017. The Chief Officer issued demolition orders in 2019 and 2023. Occupants filed reports suggesting repairs could extend the building's life. The Chief Officer passed a third demolition order in 2024 after considering various reports, including one by Prof. M.G. Gadgil, opining imminent danger. Some occupants challenged the demolition orders, obtaining stays, while others filed civil suits claiming adverse possession. The High Court appointed the Goa Engineering College (GEC) to conduct a fresh inspection.
Procedural Posture: The present matter is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the revisional orders of the Secretary, Urban Development, which had set aside the demolition order passed by the Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council.
Issue: Did the Secretary, Urban Development, err in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, to interfere with the Chief Officer's demolition order under Section 190 of the same Act, given the reports indicating the building's ruinous condition and the limited scope of revisional powers?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Secretary, Urban Development, improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction. The High Court quashed the Secretary's order and upheld the Chief Officer's demolition order.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 303 provides limited revisional powers, exercisable only if an order suffers from illegality or procedural irregularity. The Chief Officer's order, based on multiple reports, including the GEC's opinion of the building being in a ruinous state, did not suffer from such defects. The Revisional Authority overstepped its jurisdiction by opining on technical matters and the building's present safety, despite expert reports indicating otherwise. The Court emphasized the imminent danger posed by the building and the need for swift action under Section 190 to protect life and property, citing previous judgments emphasizing that courts should err on the side of caution when human lives are at stake. The Court rejected the argument that the pendency of civil suits claiming adverse possession was a bar to the demolition order, stating that such claims can be enforced even after demolition. The Court directed the Chief Officer to ensure the building's demolition within a specified timeframe.