DATTARAM A AROLKAR Vs. MAMLATDAR OF MORMUGAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issue involved in the Letters Patent Appeal involves an important question of interpretation of section 7-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act"), apart from Counsel appearing in the present Letters Patent Appeal, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also allowed to address the Court on the issue of law.

(2.) THE Companion Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 wherein the same issue arose, was also tagged alongwith this Letters Patent Appeal which has been heard. However, it seems that during the pendency of the proceedings, one of the respondents has expired. In the light of that, the said Letters Patent Appeal has to be heard separately after the Legal Representatives are brought on record. However, since the issue of law was common, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also heard while disposing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) BRIEF facts may be necessary to be stated before formulating the issue that will arise for determination in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The appellants herein were the original applicants before the Mamlatdar of Mormugao. By their application they set out that they had purchased the suit property by joint Sale Deed dated 11th July, 1995. The sale had been registered. It was their contention that the name of one Usno Pandu Naik was wrongly appearing in the column of tenant. They desired to correct the survey record. They, therefore, prayed to declare the late Usno Pandu Naik alias Vishnu Pandu Naik, all the opponents/his Legal Representatives, as not tenants in respect of Survey No. 242 sub-divisions 1 and 3, prior to the coming into force of the Fifth Amendment to the Tenancy Act and even subsequently. The respondents No. 4 and 5 herein, who were the original opponents, filed a written statement. They raised various preliminary objections. The first was that the appellants herein had no locus standi as the Sale Deed was null and void, having been executed in violation of section 13-A of the Tenancy Act. Secondly, the Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the application, after the passing of the fifth amendment, the dispute according to the respondents No. 4 and 5 was of a civil nature. Thirdly, it was contended that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to grant reliefs to the applicants/appellants herein.