1 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2012

1Mrs. Martha Luis,

Major of age,

r/o. H. No. 26,

Opposite GE (Projects),

Gurudwara Road,

Mangor, Vasco Goa 403802 …. Petitioner.

Versus

1State of Goa,

Through Chief Secretary,

Secretariat,

Alto Porvorim Goa.

2Under Secretary (Revenue),

Government of Goa,

Revenue Department,

Secretariat,

Alto Porvorim Goa.

3The Collector,

Collectorate Building of

South Goa District,

Civil Administration Branch,

Margao-Goa.

4Communidade of Mormugao,

Through its Attorney,

Ground Floor,

Municipal Building,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2020:BHC-GOA:659-DB

::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

2 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

5Administrator of Communidade,

Communidade Office Bldg.,

South Goa with office at Margao.…. Respondents.

Mrs. A. Agni, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Jay Sawaikar,

Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the

Respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Coram : M. S. SONAK &

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

Date : 12

th

March, 2020.

Oral Judgment: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate who

appears alongwith Advocate Ms. Jay Sawaikar, for the Petitioner and

Ms. Priyanka Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for

Respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Respondent no. 4 though served is

neither present through any representative or Advocate.

2. The Petitioner challenges the determination of rate of

3600/- per square metre levied upon her for regularisation of her

₹

encroachment on the plot belonging to the Communidade of

Mormugao-(Respondent no. 4). ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

3 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

3. The Petitioner concedes that she was an encroacher of a

plot of land admeasuring 393 sq.mts belonging to the Communidade

of Mormugao upon which her father-in-law had constructed a

residential house much before the cut-off date of 15.06.2000.

Accordingly, the Petitioner, vide her application dated 04.01.2002 in

the prescribed form, applied for regularisation of this encroachment

by invoking the provisions of Article 372-A of the Code of

Communidade (the Code).

4. By memorandum dated 10.04.2003 the Petitioner was

informed by the Deputy Collector of Margao, Goa that her

application is rejected for want of production of relevant documents

alongwith the application seeking regularisation. On 17.02.2005,

the Petitioner, by referring to the memorandum dated 10.04.2003

submitted the necessary documents.

5. By memorandum dated 25.02.2005, the Petitioner was

informed that her application is being processed. In fact, the

memorandum dated 25.02.2005 is addressed to various authorities

for processing the Petitioner's application for regularisation and only

a copy of such memorandum is marked to the Petitioner requiring

her to approach the office of the Mamlatdar of Salcete for site

inspection. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

4 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

6. Ultimately, by order dated 21.10.2011, the Under

Secretary (Revenue-II), informed the Collector of South Goa District

that the Government has conveyed approval in terms of Article 372-

A r/w. Article 153(9) of the Code and the Rules as prescribed vide

Notification dated 05.11.2001 for regularization of unauthorised

occupation of land surveyed under Chalta No. 1 of P.T. Sheet No.

158 of Vasco City Survey, situated at Vasco City and belonging to

the Communidade of Mormugao, having an area of 393 sq. mts. to

Smt. Martha Luis, r/o. H. No. 26, Gurudwara Road, Opp. G. E.

(Project) Office, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, being an encroacher

for the construction of a residential house, at an annual lease rent

(foro) of 70,740/- (Rupees seventy thousand seven hundred

₹

forty only) at the rate of 3,600/- per sq. mts.

₹

as per the revised

rate of land w.e.f. 01/08/2006 as conveyed vide this department's

letter No. 17/87/88-RD dated 04/10/2006, in addition to penalty

@ 50% of value of the plot @ 7,07,400/- only.

₹

7. A copy of the communication dated 21.10.2011 was

marked to the Petitioner and she was requested to pursue the matter

with the prescribed authorities to take possession of the plot from the

Administrator of the Communidade. It is admitted that this

communication dated 21.10.2011 is the order of regularisation

insofar as the Petitioner's encroachment of the Communidade plot is

concerned. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

5 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

8. The Petitioner contends that alongwith her, several other

encroachers had also applied for regularisation of their

encroachments. The Petitioner has placed on record documents of

regularisation of such encroachments at pages 82 to 88 of the

paperbook of this Petition.

9. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have

determined the annual lease rent (foro) in respect of these

encroachments on the basis of the market rate of the plots under

encroachments being 366/- per square metre. The Petitioner

₹

further points out that insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, the rate

determined is almost 10 times higher, i.e. 3600/- per square metre.

₹

10. The Petitioner contends that there is absolutely no

difference in the case of the Petitioner as also the encroachers, whose

encroachments were regularised vide orders at pages 82 to 88 of the

paperbook. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that there was

absolutely no justification in determining the rate of 3600/- per

₹

square metre insofar as the Petitioner's encroachment was concerned

as against the rate of 366/- per square metre, which is the rate

₹

determined in the case of other almost identically placed encroachers

from the same ward/locality.

11. Mrs. Agni, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

6 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

submits that this is a clear case of hostile discrimination which is

prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

12. Mrs. Agni, in the aforesaid circumstances, submits that

the regularisation of the Petitioner's encroachment must be allowed

on the basis of the rate of 366/- per square metre and not 3600/-

₹ ₹

per square metre. She submits that ultimately, the regularisations

have been permitted on the basis of encroachments which took place

several years earlier and, therefore, there is no justification in fixing

such higher rate or levying penalty of 50%. She also points out to

the affidavit filed by Mr. Ashutosh Apte, Under Secretary (Revenue)

on behalf of Government of Goa to submit that there is no reason or

rationale set out for practice of hostile discrimination against the

Petitioner.

13. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, the learned Additional

Government Advocate points out that the Petitioner's application for

regularisation had in fact been rejected vide memorandum dated

10.04.2003. She submits that the Petitioner's application dated

17.02.2005, can at the highest be considered as fresh application

seeking regularisation. In any case, she points out that the

Petitioner's application for regularisation was processed by several

authorities and, ultimately, the Collector of South Goa vide his letter

dated 18.01.2010 submitted the proposal for regularisation to the ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

7 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

Revenue Department of the Government. She submits that as on

18.10.2010 the new rates which entered into force from 01.08.2006

became applicable. Therefore, the rate determined in the case of the

Petitioner's encroachment was 3600/- per square metre. In contrast,

₹

she points out that, the applications of the other encroachers were

forwarded by the Collector of South Goa on or about 06.10.2006

and, therefore, the rate of 366/- per square metre was determined in

₹

case of their encroachments. She submits that this is no case of

hostile discrimination being practiced against the Petitioner. She

further submits that penalty has been levied upon all the encroachers

and the same is quite consistent with the provisions of the Code and

Rules therein. For all these reasons, she submits that this Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

14. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

15. The issue of regularisation of encroachments of plots of

the Communidade is governed by the provisions of Article 372-A of

the Code which reads as follows:

“372-A. Regularisation of unauthorised occupation,

wrongful possession, etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding

anything contained, elsewhere in this Code, or any

other law for the time being in force, or in any

instrument, judgement, decree or order of any court or ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

8 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

law, any person who is in unauthorised occupation of,

or in wrongful possession of, or who has encroached

upon, in or over, any land:

(a) vested in Comunidade, or

(b) to the use or occupation of which he is not

entitled or has ceased to be entitled, by reason of:

(i) any of the provisions of this Code, or

(ii) the expiry of the period of lease or termination

a lease for breach of any of the conditions annexed

to the tenure;

and has constructed, on or before 15-6-2000, a house,

for residential purpose on such land, shall, on an

application made by him to the Collector of the

concerned district, within a period of 90 days from the

date on which the Article 372-A, came into effect, in the

specified form, accompanied by specified documents and

on payment of specified fees, be entitled for the

regularisation of such unauthorised occupation or

wrongful possession or encroachment including of the

said residential house, subject however to sub-clause (3)

Article 372-A.

(2) From the date on which Article 372-A came into

effect till the expiry of the period of 90 days prescribed

under sub-clause (1) above, or till the pendency and

disposal of the application, if any; made under sub-clause

(1) above, as the case may be:

(a) no proceedings shall be initiated and no order shall

be passed, under this Code, against a person who is ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

9 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

eligible to apply for and whose case falls, under sub-

clause (1) above, and

(b) all proceedings already initiated and any order

already passed under this code, against a person who

is eligible to apply for and whose case falls under sub-

clause (1) above, shall remain stayed during such

period as prescribed above:

Provided that the period of stay of any proceedings

initiated or of any order passed under this Code or the

period during which no proceedings can be initiated or

no order can be passed under this Code as stated above,

shall not extend beyond a period of one year from the

date on which Article 372-A came into effect

notwithstanding the fact that the said application made

under sub-clause (1) above is not disposed off within the

said period of one year.

(3) The form of application, fees payable, the procedure

to be followed in processing/deciding the application

under sub-clause (1) above, the documents required to

be furnished alongwith an application under sub-clause

(1) above, the area to be regularised, the fine to be

imposed upon, for regularisation, if any, etc., shall be

such as may be specified in the rules under the Code.”

16. In terms of Article 372, the State Government has

framed Rules known as Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated

15-4-1961 (Amendment) Rules, 2001. The 2001 Rules insert new

rules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 after rule 13 of the Goa, Daman &

Diu Legislative Diploma Number 2070 dated 15.04.1961 Rules,

1985. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

10 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

17. In the context of the issues raised in this Petition,

reference is necessary to rules 14, 15, 18 and 19 which read as

follows:

“14. Form of application for regularisation in terms of

Article 372-A and fees payable thereof.-- Every

application for regularisation as provided in clause (1) of

Article 372-A shall be made in Form I hereto and shall

be accompanied by a processing fee of rupees two

hundred.

15. Area of land to be regularised in terms of Article

372-A.--(1) The area of land to be regularised in terms

of Article 372-A shall be the land on which the

residential house is constructed and the land around and

appurtenant to such house subject to a maximum limit

of five metres if such land lies within the jurisdiction of

a Village Panchayat and two metres if such land lies

within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council, so

however that the total maximum area of land to be

regularised shall not exceed 300 square metres if such

land lies within the jurisdiction of a Village Panchayat

and 200 square metres if such land lies within the

jurisdiction of a Municipal Council, or the actual total

area whichever is less, including the area of the land

covered by the residential house.

(2) Where the distance between the outer wall of

two houses is less than double the limit of five

metres or two metres as the case may be, as stated

in sub-rule (1) above, the land appurtenant to

such houses shall be half of the land lying between

the outer walls of the said residential houses.

18. Fines for regularisation.--(1) The Administrator ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

11 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

shall impose a fine for the regularisation of the

encroachment to the extent of 25% of the rates per

square metre specified by the Government from time to

time, in respect of talukas such as Canacona, Sanguem,

Ouepem, Satari, Bicholim and Pernem and to the extent

of 50% of the said rate in respect of the remaining

talukas of the State of Goa.

(2) The Collector shall charge the present prevailing

conversion charges as conversion fees and a fine

equivalent to the conversion charges.

19. Regularisation of construction.-- The construction

of the residential house proposed for regularisation shall

be regularised by the local authority in accordance with

the relevant laws in force administered by them.”

18. From the perusal of Rule 18 it is quite clear that the

Administrator of Communidade is empowered to impose fine for

regularisation of encroachments to the extent of 25% of the rates per

square metre specified by the Government from time to time, in

respect of talukas such as Canacona, Sanguem, Ouepem, Satari,

Bicholim and Pernem and to the extent of 50% of the said rate in

respect of the remaining talukas of the State of Goa. In the present

case, we are concerned with the taluka Mormugao and, therefore, the

Administrator is empowered to impose a fine for regularisation of the

encroachment to the extent of 50% of the rate per square metre

specified by the Government of Goa from time to time. Besides, the

Collector is also competent to charge the present prevailing ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

12 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

conversion charges as conversion fees and a fine equivalent to the

conversion charges.

19. Neither from the Rules nor the provisions of the Code,

the learned Counsel for the parties were able to point out whether

there exist any provisions prescribing cut-off date for making

applications for regularisation. All that Article 372-A of the Code

requires is that the encroachments, including, by way of construction

of house for residential purpose therein must have taken place on or

before 15.06.2000. Therefore, nothing really turns upon the date on

which the applicant applies for regularisation of the encroachments.

At the highest, the date may assume importance in the context of

determination of the rate at which the penalty and annual lease rent

is to be determined.

20. Record indicates that insofar as the Petitioner's

encroachment is concerned, the calculations were on the basis that

the rate must be 3600/- per square metre. However, in respect of

₹

other encroachers, whose regularisation orders are to be found at

pages 82 to 88 of the paperbook are concerned, the calculations were

on the basis of at the rate of 366/- per square metre. There is no

₹

serious dispute that the other encroachments are in respect of plots

on the very same Communidade and from the same locality/ward. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

13 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

The Respondents, in such circumstances, were required to explain

prima facie discrimination, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.

21. Shri Ashutosh Apte, Under Secretary (Revenue) has filed

an affidavit and attempted to explain the prima facie discrimination

in paragraphs 3 to 7 of his affidavit, which read as follows:

“3. I say that the Petitioner has challenged letter dated

January 03, 2012 and the Communication dated

21/10/2011 whereby the approval of the

Government in terms of Article 372-A read with

Article 153(9) of the Code of Communidade and

Rules prescribed for regularisation of unauthorised

occupation of land surveyed under chalta no. 1 of P.

T. Sheet no. 158 of Vasco City Survey, situated at

Vasco da Gama and belonging to Communidade of

Mormugao having an area of 393 sq. mts. to the

Petitioner, being an encroacher is conveyed. The

petitioners challenge is to the communication that

the regularisation would be at an annual lease rent

(foro) of Rs.70,740/- at the rate of 3600/- per sq,

mts as per the revised rates of land w.e.f. 01/8/2006,

in addition to penalty @50% of value of the plot

@7,07,400/- only.

4. I deny that there is arbitrary exercise on the part of

this respondent in fixing the annual lease rent of

70,740/- quantified at the rate of 3600/- per m2

and further penalty at the rate of 50% of the value

of the plot. I say that the case referred to by the

Petitioner in the petition are not similarly placed

liked the Petitioner. I say that the proposal was

forwarded by the Collector only on 06/10/2006 in ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

14 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

the case of the other encroachers while the

Petitioners proposal was forwarded only on

19/01/2010. I say that the Petitioners application

was considered on its own merits and approval was

granted accordingly.

5.I say Petitioner is not entitled to the rate fixed for

the other persons and is liable to pay as per the new

rates as the case of the Petitioners is different from

the case of the other encroachers relied on by the

Petitioners.

6. I deny that the Petitioner is being singled out and

exorbitant rate is fixed while considering the

application under article 372A of the Code of

Communidade, whereas other similarly placed

persons whose applications for regularisation have

been considered at a land rate uniformly fixed at

Rs.366/- per m2.₹

7.I say that the Land rates fixed for the Petitioner is

strictly in accordance with the Gazette of 2003 and

decision of the Government that the rates will come

into force w.e.f. 01/08/2016.”

22. The explanation, in fact, is in paragraph 4 of the

affidavit. The affidavit states that the encroachers whose

regularisation came to be regularised vide orders at pages 82 to 88 of

the paperbook, were those whose applications for regularisation were

forwarded by the Collector on 06.10.2006 whereas, the application

of the Petitioner for regularisation of encroachment was forwarded by

the Collector only on 19.01.2010. From this, it is sought to be ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

15 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

suggested that as on the date when the Petitioner's application for

regularisation was forwarded by the Collector to the Government, the

rates which entered into force w.e.f. 01.08.2006 became applicable.

Therefore, the rate insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, is

determined on the basis of Gazette of 2003 which came into force

from 01.08.2006.

23. According to us, the aforesaid explanation can hardly be

regarded as explanation to explain the charge of discrimination. In

the first place, the Petitioner cannot have any control on the time

taken by the authorities to process her application. Secondly, even

insofar as the other encroachers are concerned, as per the affidavit,

even their applications/proposals were received by the Government

from the Collector on 06.10.2006. Accordingly, there was no reason

not to make the rates of Gazette of 2003 which entered into force on

01.08.2006 applicable to the cases of these other encroachers as well.

The fact that these rates have not been made applicable to other

encroachers but made applicable only to the case of the Petitioner

thus suggests that the Petitioner, though placed in equal situation,

was not treated equally. In other words, the case of discrimination

and consequent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

has been made out by the Petitioner in the matter of determination

of the rates. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

16 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

24. Ordinarily, therefore, we were inclined to grant full relief

to the Petitioner by determining the rate of 366/- per square metre

₹

which is the rate determined in case of other encroachers whose

encroachments came to be regularised vide orders at pages 82 to 88

of the paperbook. However, from Rule 15 of the said Rules we find

that the Government was entitled to regularise encroachment to the

maximum extent of 200 square meters if the land lies within the

jurisdiction of Municipal Council or the actual total area, whichever

is less, including the land covered by a residential house. In this case,

there is no dispute that the land is located within the jurisdiction of

Municipal Council. Therefore, the regularisation could have been to

the maximum extent of 200 square metres and not beyond.

25. Instead, Government has accepted the resolution of the

concerned Communidade and purported to regularise the

encroachments to the extent of 393 square metres. The

Communidade had reasoned that if an area of 193 square metres is

left without regularisation, in all probability, such area will be

encroached upon by the Petitioner or others without any benefit to

the Communidade.

26. According to us, this can hardly be the reason to

recommend regularisation of an area in excess of the maximum

prescribed land. In any case, there is no provision either under ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

17 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

Article 372-A of the Code or the said Rules, in terms of which the

Government can approve regularisation of an area in excess of the

total maximum area of 200 square metres where the land is within

the jurisdiction of Municipal Council.

27. Therefore, insofar as the regularisation of 200 square

metres is concerned, the Petitioner has made out a case that the rate

to be determined is 366/- per square metre, consistent with the rate

₹

determined in respect of other encroachers, whose encroachment

orders are to be found at pages 82 to 88 of the paperbook. However,

in respect of the balance portion of 193 square metres, the Petitioner

was not entitled to any regularisation at all, much less, regularisation

of payments at the rate of 366/- per square metre.

₹

28. Mrs. Agni, however, points out that the encroachments

have taken place several years ago. The Communidade had also

resolved in favour of the regularisation in respect of the area of 393

square metres. She points out that even in respect of the other

encroachers, the area encroached exceeds 200 square metres. She,

therefore, submits that even the portion in excess of 200 square

metres may be ordered to be regularised upon payments at the rate of

366/- per square metre.

₹

29. According to us, rule 15 of the said Rules, is quite clear ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

18 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

and it provides that only 200 square metres of encroachment can be

regularised if such encroachment is within the jurisdiction of

Municipal Council. This rule, could not have been breached either

by the Communidade or the Government. Ultimately, it is to be

borne in mind that there is public interest in ensuring that the

properties of Communidade are not frittered away by encroachments

and easy regularisations of such encroachments. The Communidades

are under the tutelage of the State Government and, therefore, there

is a duty and responsibility cast on the State Government to ensure

that the Communidade properties are not frittered away, particularly,

by encroachments. The provisions of Article 372-A are in the nature

of a one time exception and there is no question of either the

Communidades or the State Government expanding, unduly, the

scope of such exception. Advisedly, therefore, the rules provide that

the area to be regularised can be to the maximum extent of 200

square metres if the land is within the jurisdiction of Municipal

Council.

30. The fact that the regularisation orders at pages 82 to 88

indicate that the Government has approved encroachments in excess

of 200 square metres will not entitle the Petitioner to claim the same

treatment by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. What

this Article contemplates is positive equality and not some kind of

equality of illegalities. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

19 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

31. Therefore, though in the peculiar facts of the present

case, i.e., the fact that the encroachment took place several years ago,

we will refrain from interfering with the regularisation orders, to the

extent the area of the regularisation exceeds 200 square metres, the

Petitioner, will have to pay annual lease rent on the basis of the

market rate of 3600/- per square metre insofar as the additional

₹

encroachment portion admeasuring 193 square metres is concerned.

This is, in fact, the minimum that the Petitioner will have to pay if,

she seeks to sustain regularisation in respect of the additional area of

193 square metres.

32. According to us, the Communidade concerned as well as

the State Government will also have to take steps to recover

additional lease rent (foro) from the encroachers whose

encroachments have been regularised vide orders at pages 82 to 88 of

the paperbook. This means that in respect of the regularisation of the

encroachments in excess of 200 square metres, even these

encroachers, will have to pay annual lease rent at the market rate. The

State Government will no doubt have to comply with principles of

natural justice before such action is taken. We further direct the State

Government to complete such action in respect of other encroachers

within a period of one year from today.

33. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

20 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

will have to pay annual lease rent as well as fine as is contemplated by

rule 18 of the said Rules in respect of the regularised area upto 200

square metres at the rate of 366/- per square metre. The annual

₹

lease rent on this basis comes to 3660/- and the fine amount comes

₹

to 36,600/-. To that extent, the order of regularisation dated

₹

21.10.2011 shall stand modified.

34. However, when it comes to the balance area of 193

square metres which is unauthorisedly regularised by order dated

21.10.2011, the Petitioner cannot avoid payment of annual lease rent

(foro) at the market rate which shall be 3600/- per square metre.

₹

On this basis, the Petitioner will have to pay annual lease rent of

34,740/-. Since, market rate is taken into consideration, Mrs. Agni

₹

submits that no further fine may be imposed upon the Petitioner.

Since, the issue of so called regularisation of additional 193 square

metres of land is only being tolerated though not approved, it is true

that such tolerance cannot be relayed to either the exercise of powers

under Article 372-A of the Code or rule 18 of the said Rules.

Accordingly, no fine as such is being levied. The annual lease rent in

respect of this portion of 193 square metres will, however, be

determined at the market rate of 3600/- per square metre. Besides,

₹

we make it clear that this tolerance in respect of 193 square metres is

not to be treated as a precedent by any of the Communidades or the

State Government The regularisation in terms of Article 372-A will ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::

21 wp-275-2012 dtd. 12.03.2020

have to be consistent with the limits set out in rule 15 of the said

Rules.

35. Thus, totally, the Petitioner will have to pay annual lease

rent of 38,400/- and fine of 36,600/-. The fine amount, if not

₹ ₹

already paid, will have to be paid within a period of 12 weeks from

today. Similarly, the annual lease rent, w.e.f. 21.10.2011 will also

have to be paid within 12 weeks from today. If this is not done, then

the Petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits of regularisation and

Communidade and the State Government will have to take steps to

remove the encroachment of the Petitioner and restore the plot of

393 square metres to the Communidade.

36. The Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid term.

There shall be no order as to costs.

37. All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated

copy of this order.

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

msr. ::: Uploaded on - 30/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 22:09:26 :::