GASPAR FERNANDES Vs. FATIMA S BARRETO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the judgment and Order dated 29-4-97 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Applications No. 32/94, 33/94 and 42/94. By the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector at Panaji in relation to Survey No. 280/1 situated at Caranzalem.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners purchased certain area of land from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais during the period from 1980 to 1990 in different pieces of land. Simultaneously, respondent No. 1 also purchased certain area from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais by deed dated 9-11-88. Thereafter by an application dated 17-4-1989 the respondent No. 1 applied for partitioning of the holdings and allotment of separate survey number for the pieces of land purchased by her and which was otherwise forming part of the plots of land bearing Survey Nos. 280/1 and 256/1. Necessary order in that regard was passed on 16-8-89, but the petitioners were not heard in the matter before passing the said order. In fact, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were never notified about the said proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 and they learnt about the same only after receipt of summons in Civil Suit No. 39/94/d filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. Having learnt about the same, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the said order and thereafter filed the applications before the Administrative Tribunal on 16-3- 1994 for leave to appeal against the said order of the Deputy Collector in the said partition proceedings. The tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said applications on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of the survey numbers when Patriarcado das Indias Orientais sought partition of the plots and therefore in view of provisions contained in section 61 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968, the petitioners were not required to be heard.

(3.) UPON hearing Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M. B. DCosta, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the name of the original petitioner No. 1 was very much available in the Record of Rights in relation to the property in question from 3-4-1989 i. e. prior to the passing of the order by the Deputy Collector in the partition proceedings. Moreover, the name of the petitioner No. 2 came to be entered in the occupants column of the Record of Rights of the property in question sometimes on 5th October, 1989. Moreover, the entry in favour of the original petitioner No. 1 was initially in pencil with a note that the said entry was yet to be finalised.