RAVINDRA H BHANDARI Vs. SURYA JENO MASHELKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition purports to be under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prays for setting aside the order dated 31st of August, 1995 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Panaji, Goa and the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in the Revision Application dated 15 1 1996 .

(2.) THE Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, (hereafter referred as Tenancy Act) praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the Respondent No.1's possession of the suit property. He claimed that he is tenant of the land known as "Agali Xir" or "Curnachi Xir", surveyed under Nos.11/1, 3/7 and 4/4 situated at Azossim village and he is paying rent of Rs.1200 per year. He further claimed that nearly 1500 cashew trees are grown on the said field apart from some other like mango trees, jackfruit trees, etc. He claimed that on 31 12 1994 , at the instance of the Petitioner No.1, five persons tried to trespass into the said land and commit mischief. He also filed application for temporary injunction. The Mamlatdar of Tiswadi at Panaji heard the same and rejected the said application by order dated 16th of March, 1995. However, in the body of the order, he noted that the application itself was not maintainable, as it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 was in possession of the said land. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal and the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Panaji, by order dated 31st of August, 1995, set aside the said order and continued the ad interim injunction, which was granted on 5 1 1995 . He also set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar on 16 3 1995 . He came to the conclusion, on appreciation of evidence, that it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 was not in possession of the said land. This was challenged by these Petitioners by filing revision before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal again considered the evidence and affirmed the finding that the Respondent No.1 was in possession of the said land and cultivating the same. What is now contended is that it was an error to come to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 had established his possession of the suit land as tenant and the application filed by Respondent No.1 itself was prima facie not maintainable. It is submitted that from the record produced, it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 has proved his possession.

(3.) IT is not possible to accept that merely because he has stated that he is distiling the liquor and has not produced the licences required under the Excise Act, it can be concluded that he is not in possession of Survey No.11/1, 3/7 and 4/4. The law will take its own course in that respect and he can be even punished, if found guilty. Further, continuously licences are granted to him to extract the juice from cashew apples since 1969 to 1994. This exactly corresponds with the case of Respondent No.1 that he became the tenant in 1969 and since then he is extracting the juice under the licences granted to him, which are also under the Excise Act. Thus till the filing of the application those are licences. The non mentioning of the Survey No.11/1, 3/7 and 4/4 in the said licences is not relevant. No such column is pointed out. As far as the claim made that the Respondent No.1 is also having two other survey numbers 4/7 and 4/8 in which cashew trees are standing is concerned, the record shows that both these survey numbers are small, totally admeasure 4510 square metres. The cashew grove is not shown. Further, the record shows that there are hardly any cashew tree standing on those lands. Therefore, prima facie, it can be said that these licences to extract the juice from the cashew apples is taken by the Respondent No.1 as he was in possession of 11/1, 3/7 and 4/4 in which there is cashew grove.