HIGINO V DE M VIEGAS Vs. THOMAS DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. The above petition inter-alia seeks to quash and set aside the judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed in Land Revenue Appeal No. 225/2001 as well as to quash and set aside the notice dated 26.05.2010.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioners fled an application before the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete for mutation to enter their names in the record of rights pertaining to the property surveyed under No. 128/10 of Cavellosim Village. The respondents filed their objections to such claim of mutation inter-alia alleging that the case of the petitioners is fabricated. The learned Joint Mamlatdar by order dated 29.11.2000 rejected the objections filed by the respondents and allowed the application for mutation filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred a First Appeal bearing Appeal No. 2/2001 to the Dy. Collector and SDO, South Goa, Margao. The learned Dy. Col lector and SDO by order dated 13.11.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Dy. Collector, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal which was to be disposed of by judgment dated 23.09.2009 whereby the appeal was allowed and the impugned orders of the Authorities below came to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Authorities were directed to restore the entries in the Form I & XIV in respect of the property bearing survey No. 128/10 of Cavellosim Village. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the survey records in respect of the suit property bearing survey No. 128/10 stands in the name of Geraldina Costa. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in view of the allotment of the property in the Inventory Proceedings which were initiated way back in the year 1955 wherein in the auction proceedings held therein on 03.05.1955 initiated upon the death of Pascoal Joaquim Milagres, the said property was taken up in auction by late father of the first two petitioners and father-in-law of the third petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in the order passed in Land Acquisition Proceedings on 31.8.1971, the compensation for such acquisition was paid to the late father of the first two petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners were in actual possession of the disputed land surveyed under No. 128/10 and as such, before promulgation of the record of rights, the petitioners filed an application to get their names mentioned in the survey records. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the first two petitioners filed an application inter-alia stating that the survey records are in the name of a non existing person known as Geraldina Costa who is shown as occupant in such proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his claim has pointed out that the petitioners have also produced a deed of succession dated 05.10.1998 and thereafter filed an application under Section 96 of the Land Revenue Code to enter their names in the survey records. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in such proceedings after a public notice was issued calling for objections to the application filed by the petitioners, the respondents raised their objection which came to be rejected by order dated 29.11.2000. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and pointed out that the Second Appeal filed against the order of the Dy. Collector was not maintainable as according to him such appeal, if any, would lie before the Collector. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the said Geraldina Costa is a non existing person, the petitioners were entitled to file the proceedings for mutation and as such, the learned Tribunal was not justified to interfere in the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the judgment of the learned Tribunal and pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erroneously appreciated the material on record and has wrongly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.