Court grants temporary relief to project's promoter
MAPUSA
A court in Mapusa has extended the stay on the demolition of the controversial “Birch by Romeo Lane” structure, granting temporary relief to the project’s promoter, Surinder Khosla.
The matter, which has drawn significant public and political attention in recent months, is now posted for further hearing on March 13.
The stay was extended despite opposition from the Directorate of Panchayat, which had appealed against the earlier interim protection and urged the court not to continue the relief.
However, the court chose to extend the stay after hearing both sides.
Confirming the development, advocate Sebastian Vales, counsel for Surinder Khosla, said the court had considered their submissions before granting the extension.
“The panchayat department strongly opposed the extension of the stay. However, after hearing our arguments, the court was pleased to extend the interim stay order. The matter is now fixed for March 13,” Vales told reporters.
The dispute centres around the demolition proceedings initiated against the structure known as “Birch by Romeo Lane,” which local authorities have alleged was constructed in violation of applicable permissions and planning norms.
The local panchayat had earlier issued demolition orders, contending that the construction did not comply with statutory approvals and exceeded permissible limits.
Khosla, through his legal team, challenged the demolition order before the Mapusa court, arguing that due process had not been followed and that the structure was being targeted without affording adequate opportunity to present relevant documents and clarifications.
The court had previously granted an interim stay on demolition, preventing authorities from taking coercive action.
The Directorate of Panchayat subsequently moved the court seeking to vacate the stay, maintaining that the structure was illegal and that continued protection would defeat the purpose of enforcement action.
Government representatives are understood to have argued that unauthorized constructions cannot be allowed to stand, especially in areas facing growing concerns over planning violations.
Sources familiar with the case said the court, while extending the stay, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and will examine the legality of the demolition order in detail at the next hearing.
