BALDY PALMIRA DOMENTINA GRACIASE MIRANDA Vs. ANTONIO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the judgment and order dated 26th December, 1986 of the Addl. Collector of Goa which has upset the judgment and order of the Mamlatdar dated 29th March, 1984 and also the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 27-1-1989 which has affirmed the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 26-12-1986.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit against the respondent No. 1 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, seeking for permanent injunction against him from interfering with his property. The said respondent took a stand that he was a mundkar of the property. The issue regarding mundkarship was referred to the Mamlatdar by the Civil Judge for decision in terms of the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, (hereinafter called the Act ). The respondent No. 1 was examined before the Mamlatdar. However, the said respondent failed to make himself available for cross-examination. No other witness was produced by the respondent No. 1 or any witnesses were examined on his behalf. The Power of Attorney of the petitioner and two more witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. By judgment dated 29th March, 1984, the Mamlatdar has held that respondent No. 1 failed to establish that he was a mundkar of the petitioner and consequently rejected his application. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Collector at Panaji which was placed before the Addl. Collector and numbered as Case No. MUND/ac/apl/54/84. The learned Addl. Collector by judgment and order dated 26th December, 1986 held that from the statements on record it had been established that the respondent No. 1 was allowed by the petitioner to stay in the suit but since the year 1974 and since the petitioner had not filed any suit for his eviction from the hut for the period of one year prior to the appointed date, i. e. 12-3-1976, respondent No. 1 was entitled to be declared as a mundkar. Accordingly by allowing the appeal the order of the Mamlatdar was upset.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment, the petitioner filed a revision before the Administrative Tribunal which was numbered as Mundkar Revision Application No. 7 of 1987. The Tribunal also by its judgment dated 27th January, 1989 was of the view that as the respondent No. 1 was residing in the suit hut from 1974 he was entitled under Explanation to section 2 (p) of the Act to be declared as a mundkar and accordingly dismissed the revision application. These are the two orders of the Addl. Collector and of the Administrative Tribunal which are being impugned by the present petition.