DINESH PUNDALIK VAIGANKAR Vs. PURDENCIA FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. N. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.3 & 4.

(2.) THE above writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10/011/2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panaji -Goa in Mundkar Revision Application No.45/2002.

(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case as set out by the petitioner are that there is a property bearing survey no.152/2 of Chorao village which at one time belonged to respondent no.2. The said property is an agricultural land since the year 1952 and held on tenancy by the father of the petitioner/Vaigankar. It is further their contention that in view of the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 the petitioner became deemed purchaser of the said land. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 31/01/1995, the father of the petitioner was declared as a tenant by an order passed by the learned Mamlatdar of Tiswadi in case No.TNC/120/80 and case No.TNC/28/1993. It is further their case that respondent no.2 preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the learned Deputy Collector and the same came to be dismissed. The respondent no.2 thereafter preferred a revision before the Tribunal being Tenancy Revision Application No.24/2000. The said revision petition came to be disposed of by filing consent terms. In the consent terms the respondent no.2 admitted that late father of the petitioner was the tenant of the property surveyed under no.152/1 and 152/2. It was inter alia agreed therein that the areas of the mundkarial house of the four mundkars were to be excluded from such declaration of tenancy. Thereafter an application under Section 18C of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 came to be filed and a purchase sanad was subsequently issued in favour of the petitioner in December, 2001. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 claiming to be the heir of Smt. Purdencia Fernandes claimed to be a resident of H.No.1197 and as such filed an application for registration before the learned Mamlatdar in respect of the house located in the property under survey no.152/1 of Chorao village. The said application for registration came to be finally disposed of somewhere on 8/03/1999. Thereafter in the year 2000 the respondent no.1 filed an application to purchase mundkarial area as against respondent no.2. On the basis of the said registration vide order dated 9/08/1999 an area of 400 square metres was demarcated as forming part of the dwelling house of the respondent no.1 and was allowed to be purchased for a total sum of Rs.5400/ -. It was further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not have knowledge about the said order dated 9/03/1999 until July, 2000 when he received notice from the Talathi. It is further the case of the petitioner that immediately thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector challenging the said order dated 8/03/1999 declaring respondent no.1 as a Mundcar. The learned Deputy Collector by an order dated 31/01/2002 dismissed the said appeal holding inter alia that respondent no.1 had produced the survey records in form no.I and XIV of the property surveyed under no.152/2 of Chorao village which shows the existence of a house owned by one Smt. Purdencia Fernandes and depicted in the survey plan. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said judgment and order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 31/01/2002 by preferring a revision before the Administrative Tribunal being revision application no.40/2002. By judgment dated 10/11/2004 the learned Tribunal dismissed the said revision preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.