TILOTTAMA V VENGURLEKAR; LAXMI LAXMAN DICHOLKAR Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GOA; AVELINA RAPOSE; SUNDAREM GUNO NAIK; MAHADEV PANDHARI THANEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances :-

(2.) To this application the respondents No. 3 and 4 (they are original Opponents No. 3 and 2) filed a written statements which assumes some importance in the proceedings. In the written statements they contended that the said Opponent No. 2 as his son and that the said Opponent No. 3 is the widow of the said deceased. It is also pleased that the said deceased had given the said field exclusively to Opponent No. 3 and that till about 1972 the said deceased used to help the Opponents in the cultivation of the same field. They also asserted that they are also the heirs of the said deceased. It was also contended that the Opponent No. 2 was himself paying the rent to Opponent No. 1 in respect f the said field and that Opponent No. 1 has accepted the said Opponent No. 2 as his tenant. The petitioners have denied all this contentions.

(3.) The Mamlatdar decided the said application after recording evidence on either side. He allowed the application. Against the said decision the Opponents, present respondents No. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Addl. Deputy Collector, North Goa., being Tenancy Appeal No. ADC-N/TNC-APPL/1/83. In the Memorandum of Appeal they specifically contended that Opponent No. 2 was the adopted son and the Opponent No. 3 was the wife and such hey were the members of the joint family of the deceased. It was therefore contended that they were entitled to continue the tenancy as surviving members of the said deceased. It was also pointed out that the Opponent No. 2 was also a nephew of the said deceased (son of the brother of the said deceased). The Deputy Collector thought that this contention had not been raised before the Mamlatdar and that therefore they could not have raised that point in appeal and the claim of tenancy rights on the said basis could be allowed, and that is how their appeal was dismissed.