The Comunidade of Tivim has issued a show cause notice to eight gauncars who challenged the lease of its land to a private university, asking them to collectively pay ₹7.10 lakh towards legal expenses incurred in defending the case in the Bombay High Court.
The writ petition filed by the gauncars against the lease of comunidade land to the university was dismissed by the High Court around four months ago, clearing the way for the institution to begin construction.
The timing of the notice has raised concerns as it comes barely a week after Tivim residents announced their intention to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court order.
In a demand-cum-show cause notice, the Escrivao of the Comunidade, Mohan Narekar, stated that the demand had been issued under the authority of the Managing Committee and in accordance with the Code of Comunidades.
“As petitioners in writ petition Sr No. 1215 of 2025, which was dismissed in favour of the Comunidade, you are jointly and severally liable for the professional fees incurred by the institution,” the notice states.
According to the notice, Advocate Parag Rao was paid ₹6 lakh in professional fees, while Advocate Sowmya Drago received ₹1.10 lakh, taking the total expenditure to ₹7.10 lakh.
The eight petitioners have been directed to deposit the amount within seven days, failing which action under the Code of Comunidades may be initiated against them.
The notices were served on Douglas Sequeira, Godfrey D’Lima, Jose De Mello, Lawrence Ferrao, Antonio Fonseca, Adrian D’Souza, Assumption D’Souza and Matias Lobo.
The move has drawn strong reactions from the petitioners and legal observers.
One of the petitioners, Godfrey D’Lima, described the notice as an attempt to intimidate dissenting gauncars.
“This is nothing but harassment. They don’t want us to raise our voice against illegalities. If they think they can silence us with such notices, they are mistaken,” he said.
The development has added a fresh layer of controversy to the disputed land lease, raising questions over whether gauncars can be held personally liable for legal costs after challenging decisions taken by their own comunidade.
Leave a Reply