ALFREDO M RODRIGUES Vs. GOKULANANT BASCARA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.1(a)(i & ii).

(2.) This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No.20/1992 dismissing the Revision Application and the judgment dated 13.03.1992 passed by the learned Additional Collector, North Goa, Panaji, setting aside the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar in Mundkar case No. MUND/22/1973 by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was the contention of Shri Menezes that the suit was filed by the predecessor of the respondent no.1 being Civil Suit No.30/1969 for his eviction which was decreed. The second suit bearing Civil Suit No.116/1969 was filed against him again by the predecessor of the respondent no.1 in respect of the suit hut and which came to be decreed in 1973 followed by the Execution Proceedings in 1974. He had moved an application declaring him as a mundkar on 26.10.1973 under the Mundkar Act of 1971 and in which he came to be declared as a mundkar vide the judgment dated 23.12.1980. The appeal filed against this judgment was dismissed while the revision came to be allowed vide the judgment dated 05.11.1986 giving rise to the petition before this Court when an order was passed on 27.01.1989 remanding the mater to the learned Administrative Tribunal. The respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was partly allowed remanding the matter to the learned Additional Collector who allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the declaration in the petitioner's favour vide the impugned judgment dated 13.03.1992.

(3.) The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the learned Administrative Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide the judgment dated 22.10.2013. It was his contention that he had moved an application for mundkarship carving his right to the suit hut and appropriate findings given by the learned Mamlatdar in his favour. The order passed by the learned Additional Collector of remand did not properly consider the issue of mundkarship nor the case of the petitioner in its proper context and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The learned Tribunal too rendered the findings which were dehors the case of the petitioner even though he had set out his case in his application for declaring him as a mundkar. The learned Mamlatdar in his order had clearly discussed the case and rendered the findings and there was no basis in the findings of the learned Administrative Tribunal taking exception to the order of the learned Mamlatdar when it was the requirement of law that the respondent lead evidence first and then the petitioner. The learned Additional Collector too had to consider the entire evidence in view of the order of remand. The learned Administrative Tribunal had not rendered any finding that there was a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Mamlatdar holding in the petitioner's favour. The orders of the learned Additional Collector and the learned Administrative Tribunal were bad and therefore it was a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and decide in the petitioner's favour.