Team Goemkarponn
TIVIM: Eight petitioners served show cause notice for recovery of legal expenses incurred in defending university lease case
MAPUSA: The Comunidade of Tivim has called upon eight gauncars to collectively reimburse ₹7.10 lakh spent on legal representation in a case related to the leasing of comunidade land to a private university.
The demand follows the Bombay High Court’s decision earlier this year to dismiss a writ petition filed by the gauncars opposing the lease agreement. With the petition rejected nearly four months ago, the court’s ruling effectively cleared the path for the educational institution to begin construction on the disputed land.
The latest action has drawn attention as it comes shortly after a group of Tivim residents publicly expressed their intention to challenge the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
In a formal demand-cum-show cause notice issued by Escrivao Mohan Narekar, the Comunidade stated that the recovery is being sought under the provisions of the Code of Comunidades and with the approval of its Managing Committee. The notice asserts that since the writ petition (Sr No. 1215 of 2025) was decided in favour of the Comunidade, the petitioners are liable to bear the professional fees incurred in defending the matter.
The document details that Advocate Parag Rao was paid ₹6 lakh, while Advocate Sowmya Drago received ₹1.10 lakh, bringing the total legal expenditure to ₹7.10 lakh.
The eight individuals named in the notice — Douglas Sequeira, Godfrey D’Lima, Jose De Mello, Lawrence Ferrao, Antonio Fonseca, Adrian D’Souza, Assumption D’Souza and Matias Lobo — have been instructed to deposit the amount within seven days. The Comunidade has warned that failure to comply could result in further proceedings under the Code of Comunidades.
Reacting to the development, one of the petitioners criticised the move, describing it as an attempt to deter members from questioning decisions related to comunidade land. The issue has reignited debate in Tivim over accountability, dissent, and whether gauncars can be held personally responsible for legal costs arising from disputes within their own traditional institution.
