SAVITA BANDODKAR Vs. EDMUNDO RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the respondents 4 and 5 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for mundkarship in respect of house No.932 situated at Benaulim Accona, Salcete, Goa by impugned orders dated 11th August 1988 and 18th April 1995 respectively.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondents 1 and 2 herein and Smt. Elvita Rosita Ozario Rodrigues, Shri Iraquinho Rodrigues and Smt. Prazy C. Rodrigues filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit house being Regular Civil Suit No.29/83 in the Civil Court at Margao wherein the petitioners in their written statement claimed to be the mundkars in respect of the said suit house. It was the case of the said respondents that they are the owners of the suit house which is situated in the property belonging to the respondent no. 3 herein. On account of issue of mundkarship being raised by the petitioners, the same was referred to the Mamlatdar of Salcete, respondent no. 4 herein for his decision in terms of Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection and Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ).

(3.) UPON hearing the advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the Mamlatdar while rejecting the application dated 15th November, 1985 held that the said Act cannot be made applicable to the land held by association/institution in view of the decision of the Additional Collector passed in appeal filed by Shri Harichandra Vassu Gaude v. Shri Manghesh Devalaya being case no. Mund/ac/apl/67/83 dated 13th June 1984. The respondent no. 3 in this respect has relied upon certain observations from the Judgment of the additional Collector wherein the Additional Collector has observed that under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 the term 'person' is defined to include joint family, communidade, temple, church, mosque or any other religious or charitable institution whereas in the said Act the term 'person' is defined to include only joint Hindu family and there is no reference to any institution and considering that both the Acts give protection to certain class of persons, there ought to have been same reason to give different definitions for the same term and, therefore, anyone occupying Devasthan land could not be held to be entitled to claim protection under the said Act. The respondent no. 4 without considering any other aspect of the case and without going through the provisions of the said Act merely referring to the said observations made by the Additional Collector in the said Order dated 13th June, 1984 rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The respondent no. 5 on its part held that the control of churches and administrations of churches is under the Canon Law and Regulamenta das Confrarias and, therefore, there was no justification for impleadment of the respondent no. 3 in the proceedings.