ARMINDO JOSE ANDRADE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE proceed on the basis that the petition is amended and even the amended submissions and prayers are incorporated in the original Writ Petition. This Writ Petition seeks a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction and/or order, quashing the impugned letter dated 22.9.2010 and the letter dated 15.12.2010. What is essentially sought are the reliefs mentioned in prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) in this Writ Petition which is mandamus to respondents no. 2 and 3 directing them and their agents, servants, representatives, and/or contractors or such other persons acting on their behalf from doing any further construction in the property, which is claimed by the petitioners bearing survey no. 64/1(part) admeasuring 1.6600 hectares from the property, which was resumed in pursuance to the order dated 19.4.1977.

(2.) PETITIONERS claim that one Luis Manuel Andrade, the grandfather of petitioner no.1, was granted Aformento under the Decree bearing no.3.602 dated 24.11.1917, a plot of land belonging to the government and more particularly described in paragraph 3(b) of this Writ Petition and annexure "A" thereto.

(3.) AFTER stating as to how the petitioners are successors in title of the said Luis Manuel Andrade, what has been stated is that by an earlier order dated 1.6.1968, the plot assigned to the predecessor -in -title of the petitioners reverted to the Government on the ground that the petitioners' predecessor -in -title, Luis Manuel Andrade, had failed to bring the plot in complete regular cultivation. Subsequently, it was revealed that the predecessor -in -title had brought some land under cultivation and that was admeasuring 1.6600 hectares. Therefore, the said portion which was cultivated by the petitioners' predecessor -in -title was resumed to the assignee. Reliance is placed upon the order dated 19.4.1977. The petitioners claim that this very land is depicted on the plan. However, it is the case of the very petitioners that the name of petitioner no.1 was not indicated in the survey records of the property bearing survey no. 64/1(part) of Masordem Village of Sattari Taluka, and that came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when respondent no. 2 tried to interfere with their ownership and possession for purported construction of a footpath along their property.