ARCHIDIOCESE OF GOA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed by the Archidiocese of Goa, Daman and Diu and the dispute pertains to certain lands situated in two villages of Daman. The properties including agricultural and non-agricultural lands of the villages Marwad and Dalwada were taken over by the Administration of Daman and Diu in view of Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation 1962. The petitioner contended that the agricultural land was taken over without giving any compensation and the non-agricultural property was also taken over, even though it could not be taken over under the said Regulation of 1962. With these contentions, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 30/B of 1970 before the Panaji Bench of this Court. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 30.3.1983 wherein the direction was given to hold an enquiry for fixing compensation for taking over the lands. It was held that the land under the said Regulation, as amended in 1967, would mean agricultural land. The petitioners were directed to make an application to the Mamlatdar of Daman stating therein those items of the properties which could not fall within the ambit of Regulation and the Mamlatdar was required to pass appropriate orders as to which of the items of the properties in the two villages were not covered by the Regulation, after giving notice to both sides and after holding the necessary enquiry. The respondents were further directed to return the possession of those items of the properties which would be determined by the Mamlatdar as not falling within the ambit of the Regulation.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid judgment and directions given by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Mamlatdar claiming certain items of properties being not agricultural land and being not covered under the said Regulation. By the judgment and order dated 24.5.1985, Mamlatdar, Daman, came to the conclusion that the properties mentioned in the order were non-agricultural lands and were not covered by the ambit of the Regulation and, in the result, he directed that the petitioners are entitled to retain the said properties.

(3.) In suo-moto revision under Sec. 12-D of the Regulation, the Collector, Daman, set aside the order dated 24.5.1985 passed by the Mamlatdar and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar, Daman, with a direction that an enquiry should be conducted after giving notices to the persons who are likely to be affected by the enquiry, as from 1962 onwards some of the lands were distributed and allotted to the people, and after an enquiry he should decide the matter. In view of these directions, Mamlatdar, Daman, issued a public notice dated 27.3.1987 specifying the properties claimed to be non-agricultural being not covered by the Regulation by the petitioners and calling upon the public at large that anybody, likely to be affected, could appear in person to raise objection, claim, etc. The petitioner by an application dated 24.10.1989 contended that only those affected persons, who were not earlier heard in the matter, were to be given hearing and the respondents including the Collector, Daman, who were already heard in the matter before the earlier order of 1985 was passed, could not get an opportunity to file fresh written reply, written statement or to lead any evidence or to cross-examine any of the witnesses, etc. and in view of these objections about the procedure of hearing, the Mamlatdar was requested to pass appropriate orders. The said application was dismissed by order dated 27.1.1995 by the Mamlatdar, Daman. The Mamlatdar observed that as fresh enquiry was commenced after issuing a public notice as per the order passed by the Collector, alongwith others who may join the proceeding, the persons, who were already party to the proceeding are also necessary and fresh orders could be passed only after hearing them. This order dated 27.1.1995 is challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner seeks writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the said order dated 27.1.1995 and further seeks a direction that the matter before the Mamlatdar should proceed on the basis of evidence already led on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2 i.e. Collector of Daman. They also seek to quash the order of Collector remanding matter to Mamlatdar.