BABAJI SAKARAM KALSHAONKAR AND MRS CHANDRAVATI BABAJI KALSHAONKAR Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DY COLLECTOR BARDEZ DR SUSAN SZILAGYI LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by the present petition impugn the Orders of the Deputy Collector, Bardez, dated 20th February, 2001, and the Administrative Tribunal in Tenancy Revision Application No. 34/2001 dated 12th September, 2002, whereby the declaration of tenancy obtained by the petitioners herein against Miss Hemalata Anant Laad and Miss Sudha Anant Laad by the Judgment and Order dated 27th April, 1995, has been set aside. The petitioners also impugn the consequential order granted by the second respondent, as confirmed by the third respondent, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the suit plot surveyed under survey no. 404/0 of Korgao village, Pernem, till further orders.

(2.) A few facts may be set out. The petitioners claim to be tenants of the agricultural land and consequently deemed owners by virtue of the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. Their application initially came to be filed against Miss Hemalata Anant Laad and Miss Sudha Anant Laad. The matter proceeded ex parte against the said two respondents. The evidence of the petitioners herein was recorded and the declaration came to be passed in favour of the petitioners herein.

(3.) IN the meantime, a suit came to be filed in the name of the deceased husband of the respondent no. 3, by his power of attorney Uday Dattaram Prabhu Desai being Special Civil Suit No. 176/98/i/sr. In that suit the motion was taken out for granting interim relief. Injunction however, was rejected. An appeal came to be preferred against the said Order, in which appeal the Order of the trial Court was set aside and the injunction was granted. The revision preferred before this Court was rejected. Petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, by which time, it is the case of the petitioners that they came across the death certificate of Anant Laad, who had expired on 9th September, 1989. The Apex Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition directed the petitioners herein to move an application before the trial Court by producing the documents and praying for consequential directions. The petitioners accordingly moved that application and pursuant to that an order came to be passed on 12th September, 2000, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It is after that that the tenancy appeal came to be preferred by the respondent no. 3 herein, through her power of attorney, which appeal came to be allowed by the impugned Order.