GANESH RAMA GAONKAR Vs. SUDHAKAR D. PRABHU DESSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7.

(2.) The relevant facts to decide the above petitions are that the petitioners' father namely late Govind Javlo Gaonkar was recorded as tenant in Form I & XIV in the records of rights in respect of agricultural property surveyed under survey no.297/13 of Loliem Village. The subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 792 of 2009 is the property surveyed under no.297/13 whereas the subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 793 of 2009 is the property surveyed under No. 297/14 of Village Loliem. The respondent no.1 filed an application to the learned Mamlatdar of Canacona praying inter-alia that the petitioners' father be declared as not a tenant of the suit paddy field and the Talathi of the Loliem Village be directed to delete the name of the petitioners' father from the survey records. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent no.1 taking advantage of the illiteracy of the father of the petitioners who had no knowledge of English and on the pretext that his no objection on an affidavit was required to transfer his ownership right to the respondent nos.2 to 4, took his signature on such affidavit and filed it before the learned Mamlatdar of Canacona Taluka. The learned Mamlatdar took a typed statement of the petitioners' late father wherein it was stated inter-alia that he never cultivated the said paddy field at any time and that he had no objection to delete his name from the survey records. On the same day, a statement of the landlord Sudhakar D. Prabhudesai was also taken wherein he claimed that he was cultivating the suit paddy field personally for last many years. By an order dated 07.07.1995, the learned Mamlatdar held that the petitioners' late father was not a tenant in respect of the property surveyed under no.297/13 and 297/14 of Loliem Village and accordingly the Talathi was directed to delete his name. The late father of the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Dy. Collector of Quepem in October, 1996 and an order came to be passed by the learned Dy. Collector rejecting the said appeal on 30.06.2000. A revision bearing case No. TNC/REVISIOIN/102/2000 was filed by the petitioners before the learned Administrative Tribunal against the said order. By an order dated 13.10.2009, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said revision petition. Being aggrieved by the orders passed in the above petitions, the petitioners have filed the above Writ Petitions.

(3.) The essential grounds raised by the petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are that the learned Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent no.1 or pass the impugned order on 07.07.1995 as he was not appointed as a Mamlatdar under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act,1964 ( herein after referred to as "the said Tenancy Act of 1964'). It is further the contention that such appointment came only on 22.10.1996 i.e. after passing the impugned order and as such the impugned order passed by the Dy Collector as well as by the learned Tribunal have no basis and deserve to be quashed and set aside.