DIVAKAR R.DALVI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of an order dtd. 30/5/2015, passed by Respondent no. 1-Deputy Collector, hinges on interpretation and application of Sec. 61(2) of The Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, (for short, 'the aforesaid Code') to the facts of the present case.

(2.) The Petitioner filed an application dtd. 18/1/2011 before Respondent no. 1 under Sec. 61 of the aforesaid Code seeking partition of his share from property located in survey no. 207/1 and 208/1 of Village Pale. The Petitioner placed reliance on five registered Sale Deeds executed in his favour by certain co-owners of the property. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is also a co-owner of the property. According to the Petitioner, since undivided shares of his vendors were sold to him by way of aforesaid Sale Deeds, he was entitled to invoke Sec. 61(2) of the aforesaid Code, which provides that a co-holder can apply to the Collector for a partition of his share in a holding.

(3.) Some of the co-owners i.e. the contesting Respondents in this Writ Petition filed objections to the said application. They claimed that when the Petitioner approached Respondent no. 1 on the basis that undivided shares of the vendors were sold in his favour, he could not have claimed a specific area of the property while seeking partition. It was also claimed that since the shares of the co-owners were not ascertained and there was yet to be a partition of the property by metes and bounds, the application could not be entertained by Respondent no. 1. Some of the co-owners while raising objection to the aforesaid application, stated that the Sale Deeds in question were ex facie invalid for the reason that the names of the vendors were themselves not recorded in Survey form No. I and XIV and that the Sale Deeds were not executed by the daughter of one of the vendors. On this basis, it was claimed that there was a serious dispute of title raised by the objectors and that the application could not be entertained in view of the proviso to Sec. 61(2) of the said Code, which states that where any question as to title is raised, no partition shall be made until such question has been decided by a civil suit.