Bombay High Court
John Philip Pereira vs Administrator Of Communidades And 4 Ors on 15 January, 2026
2026:BHC-GOA:49
2026:BHC-GOA:49 (45) WP 16.2026
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2026
JOHN PHILIP PEREIRA ... PETITIONER
Versus
ADMINSTRATOR COMMUNIDADE
AND 4 ORS ... RESPONDENTS
Ms. Favia Misquita with Ms. Prajali Tari, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Manish Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondent
No. 1.
Ms. Amira Razaq, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vivek Rodrigues (through V.C.) with Ms. Lioba
Carvalho, Advocates for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 15th JANUARY, 2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. The Petitioner has impugned order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the Administrator of Communidades, South Zone, Page 1 of 4 th 15 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:30:45 ::: (45) WP 16.2026 rejecting his application for intervention bearing No. ACSZ/45/CORTLIM/2024-2025/547, filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the Communidade of Cortalim, who is Respondent No.2 herein.
3. In the present complaint/application bearing No. ACSZ /45/CORTLIM/2024-2025/547 before the Administrator, Vishal Naik and Sarvesh Naik are the Complainants, whilst the Petitioner John Philippe, has filed a separate and independent complaint dated 21.05.2024, which is pending before the Administrator. Writ Petition No. 12 of 2025 was filed by the present Petitioner along with three complainants, including Vishal Naik and Sarvesh Naik; the Communidade of Cortalim and Respondent No. 3 were also parties to the said Writ Petition.
4. The challenge in the Petitioner's complaint is to the grant made by the Communidade of Cortalim in favour of the Respondent No.3 and to the predecessor in title of Respondent No. 3. Considering that the Petitioner has pursued his own cause in his own application, he has chosen to agitate all issues raised by him therein. In Writ Petition no. 12 of 2025, the Petitioner along with two complainants in the Complaint No.ACSZ/45/CORTLIM/2024-2025/547 had sought the very same relief, and had further sought for the direction to the Administrator of the Communidade of Page 2 of 4 th 15 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:30:45 ::: (45) WP 16.2026 Cortalim to carry out demolition of the structure, which they allege, has been illegally carried out by Respondent No. 3 in the property surveyed under Survey No.133/1 part of village Cortalim, which the Petitioner claims, belongs to Communidade of Cortalim.
5. This Court, by its Judgment dated 24.07.2025, has declined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has instead directed the Administrator to proceed to hear and dispose of the Complaint No. ACSZ/45/CORTLIM/2024-2025/547.
6. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has chosen not to press for directions, insofar as his own application was concerned, which was pending before the Administrator at that point of time. Instead, the Petitioner has now chosen to seek intervention in the application filed by the other two Petitioners, i.e. Vishal Naik and Sarvesh Naik.
7. Ongoing through the application for intervention, in my opinion, there are no reasons cited therein justifying intervention of the Petitioner in that application, more so in the light of the fact that his own application is pending before the Communidade of Cortalim and all points can be agitated by him in his own application.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application Page 3 of 4 th 15 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:30:45 ::: (45) WP 16.2026 for intervention filed by the Petitioner. The Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 4 of 4th 15 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:30:45 :::