Writ Petition No. 583 of 2015. Case: Ramkrishna P. Kandolkar and Ors. Vs Peter Paul D'Souza and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 583 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nitin Sardesai, Senior Advocate and Suzette Pereira, Advocate and For Respondents: R.G. Ramani, Advocate |
| Judges | S. B. Shukre, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order II Rule 2; Order XXIII Rule 1; Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Sections 13, 2(p), 24, 4, 4(2), 7A, 8A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 295 |
| Judgement Date | April 18, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. B. Shukre, J.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
-
By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996.
-
The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff. The respondents had sought vacant possession of House No. 43/9, Survey No. 159/9 of village Candolim (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) vide Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. According to the petitioners, this suit was filed by the respondents out of grudge that respondents nurtured against the petitioners on account of the petitioners having lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 of Indian Penal Code against the respondents, in which case the respondents came to be convicted and punished under Section 295 of Indian Penal Code.
-
During the pendency of the aforesaid first suit, the respondents filed second suit before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa, vide Civil Suit No. 37 of 1976, which was also for eviction of the petitioners. In this suit, the petitioners disputed the claim of the respondents contending that they were the mundkars residing in the suit house much prior to the year 1975 and they had a right to repair or reconstruct the suit house under The Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Mundkars Act). During the pendency of this suit, the respondents withdrew the first suit on 07.4.1977 and the withdrawal was unconditional. Since the plea of mundkarship was raised by the petitioners, the Civil Court referred the suit to the learned Mamlatdar under Section 13 of the Mundkars Act for a decision of mundkarial issue. Upon holding an inquiry, as contemplated under Section 13, the learned Mamlatdar by his judgment and order dated 20.3.1992 declared the petitioners as mundkars.
-
The respondents challenged the said judgment and order of learned Mamlatdar by filing an appeal under Section 24 of the Mundkars Act before the Collector, North Goa, Panaji. The learned Collector found that after vacating of the suit house in the year 1975 by the petitioners, the suit house got collapsed and no steps having been taken for restoration of the dwelling house within one year, as contemplated under Section 4 of the said Act, the petitioners could not be declared as mundkars. He also held that the evidence showed that the petitioners were inducted in the suit house as care takers and, therefore, could not be held to be mundkars as defined under Section 2 (p) of the said Act. Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 the learned Collector allowed the appeal and declared that the petitioners were not the mundkars of the suit house.
-
The said order of the learned Collector was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision application before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa. By the judgment and order passed on 02.6.1997 the learned President allowed the revision and maintained the order of the Mamlatdar.
-
The order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 02.6.1997 was challenged by the respondents by filing a Writ Petition No. 313 of 1997. This Court by the order passed on 19.8.1998 held that the order of Mamlatdar passed under Section 13 is an appealable order in terms of Section 24 of the Mundkars Act and, therefore, by quashing and setting aside the order passed on 02.6.1997, this Court remanded the matter to the Administrative Tribunal for consideration of the revision application afresh in accordance with law. After remand of the case to the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, the revision application was considered afresh and by the order dated 14.1.2015 the Administrative Tribunal held that the judgment and order of the Collector dated 13.10.1995 holding that the petitioners are not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial