BHISSO GANESH GAONKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 140/2004 whereby the suit filed by the appellants for permanent injunction against the respondents came to be dismissed.

(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case as stated by the appellants are that there exists a property known as "Madia Codil Sorod" surveyed under nos.56/1, 57/1, 57/2 and 58/1 admeasuring an area of 3,38,815 square metres which was purchased by Ganesh Shaba Gaonkar on 20.09.1952 pursuant to a sale deed. The said Ganesh Gaonkar by a gift deed dated 04.04.1967 gifted the said property to the Shambu Ganesh Gaonkar. It is the contention of the appellants that a portion of the property surveyed under no.58/1 which belongs to the appellants is wrongly surveyed in the name of the respondents -State of Goa and the Forest Department. It is further their case that despite of survey records standing in the name of the respondents nevertheless, the appellants have been in possession of the disputed portion of the property. Thereafter, in the year 1997 the appellants moved the Dy. Collector under Section 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code for deleting the names of the Government and the Forest Department. By an order dated 28.03.2002, the application under Section 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code came to be dismissed by the Collector. In terms of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, the appellants chose to file the said suit only for permanent injunction. The respondents opposed the said suit and interalia claimed that the whole property surveyed under no. 58/1 belongs to the Government as according to them, it forms part and parcel of the forest known as "Morpila Dongor" which according to the respondents was duly notified in their favour. It is further their case that the disputed portion of the property was being enjoyed by the respondents and the appellants never interfered with the said part of the property. It is further their claim that the appellants had no right to the disputed portion of the suit property surveyed under no.58/1 and prayed that the suit be dismissed. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.