MAPUSA
The Comunidade of Tivim has issued a show cause notice to eight gauncars who had challenged the lease of its land to a private university, demanding that they collectively pay Rs 7.10 lakh towards legal expenses incurred in defending the case before the Bombay High Court.
The writ petition filed by the gauncars against the lease of comunidade land to the private university, was dismissed by the High Court around four months back, effectively clearing the way for the institution to commence construction.
The timing of the notice has raised eyebrows, coming barely a week after Tivim residents publicly announced their decision to approach the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.
In a peremptory 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 reads.
According to the notice, Advocate Parag Rao was paid Rs 6 lakh in professional fees, while Advocate Sowmya Drago received Rs 1.10 lakh, taking the total expenditure to Rs7.10 lakh.
The eight petitioners have been directed to deposit the amount within seven days, failing which action under the Code of Comunidades would be initiated against them.
The notices have been served on eight petitioners “ Douglas Sequeira, Godfrey D’Lima, Jose De Mello, Lawrence Ferrao, Antonio Fonseca, Adrian D’Souza, Assumption D’Souza and Matias Lobo.
The move has triggered sharp reactions from the petitioners and legal experts.
One of the petitioners, Godfrey D’Lima, termed the notice 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 already contentious land lease, raising questions about whether gauncars can be held personally liable for legal costs after challenging decisions taken by their own comunidade.
