ANTONETA FERNANDES Vs. SONIA FURTADO DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 14/09/2012 on the premise that it discloses jurisdictional errors, is an outcome of the misconstruction of the scope of its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, 'the Act' for short hereinafter and in exercise of jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Authorities below. The Administrative Tribunal had misconstrued the scope of the pleadings in a Civil Suit to frame an issue of mundkarship and the facts to be stated in an application for the registration as a mundkar. The Tribunal had failed to address itself to the stand taken by the respondent no.1 in her cross-examination to the effect that the petitioner was a tenant paying rent of Rs. 4/- per month which was entirely contradictory to the respondents' case that the petitioner was engaged as a servant. The Tribunal had misconstrued itself in law and passed the impugned judgment which justifies interference. The Administrative Tribunal on an assessment of the evidence on record had not come to the conclusion that the findings rendered by the Deputy Collector were perverse. It found that they were wrong and made beyond the scope of its revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal also found that the Deputy Collector had not considered the evidence on record threadbare and if this was the case it ought to have remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for a fresh decision and not by setting aside the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. The order passed by the Administrative Tribunal was contrary to law and disclosed errors touching its jurisdiction and therefore was liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the petitioner who submitted that an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Act which was allowed by the Mamlatdar and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents. The Administrative Tribunal in revision however allowed the petition. In that context it was his contention at the outset that the revision was not maintainable against the order of the Deputy Collector and in that context placed reliance in Telma Gonsalves V/s. Namdev Babuso Chodankar, 2015 5 BCR 390. He next referred to Section 29 of the Act read with sub-section 8 thereof and the power of an appeal and revision contained in Section 24 and 25 and submitted that there was no scope for revision when an order was passed in an appeal under Section 29(8) of the Act and a revision was maintainable only from an order passed in appeal under Section 24 of the Act. On that premise alone and for want of jurisdiction the order passed by the Tribunal had to be set aside.

(3.) On merits it was the contention of Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the petitioners that there were concurrent findings of facts on the petitioner's entitlement for registration as a mundkar and in that context referred to the application made by the petitioner, the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and the judgment passed by the Mamlatdar holding in the petitioner's favour that she was entitled to be registered as a mundkar in respect of the dwelling house in question. He next referred to the judgment passed by the Deputy Collector dated 09/12/2010 in the appeal filed by the respondents where the learned Deputy Collector had dismissed their appeal and thereafter to the judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 14/09/2012 whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed the revision application and set aside the judgment of the Deputy Collector in appeal and consequently the order of the Mamlatdar passed in the petitioner's favour.