JANI HARISCHANDRA NAIK KHANDEPARKAR Vs. RAJARAM ANANT AMONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged in this writ petition order dated 22/11/2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Mundcar Revision Application No.68 of 1997 whereby the Administrative Tribunal has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29/5/1997 passed by the Additional Collector, North Goa, Dist. Panaji.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in short, is that in response to the notice under section 29(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Mundcars Act (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (for short, � the said Act� ) issued by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka inviting applications from the persons satisfying the eligibility criteria for registering their names in the register of Mundcar, the 1st petitioner presented an application for registering her as Mundcar of the suit dwelling house. On 8/12/1988, the Mamlatdar granted the said application and ordered the registration of petitioner 1st as Mundcar of the suit dwelling house. The 1st respondent filed an application seeking permission to file an appeal against the said judgment and order dated 8/12/1988 on 19/11/1992. The 1st respondent also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on 19/11/1992. In the said appeal, the claim of the 1st respondent rested on a sale deed dated 8/1/1988 under which it was alleged that the landlord had sold the plot of land to him. The said appeal was disposed of on 29/5/1997 by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector granted permission to the 1st respondent to file the appeal. He condoned the delay. While allowing the appeal, he set aside the order dated 8/12/1988 passed in favour of the petitioners with a direction that the 1st respondent be heard in case No.MND/REG/2446/80 and a speaking order should be passed after appreciating the documents and evidence on record. The revision carried from this order having been dismissed, the petitioners have approached this court.

(3.) MR. Frias, the learned counsel for respondent 1 on the other hand submitted that the impugned order merits no interference.