1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.401 of 2010 Dr. Antonio Afonso through his legal representatives (a) Mrs. Therezinha, alias, Tereza Leocardia Apolonia Menezes, widow of the late Dr.Antonio Afonso, aged 70 years residing at H.N.169, Bairro Galli, Taleigao, near the Taleigao Market, Ilhas, Goa (b) Mrs. Mary June Christi Afonso and her husband (c) Francisco Filomeno T Dias Nunes both residing at Vancio, Guirim Bardez Goa (d) Nesba Maria A Afonso and her husband (e) Nelson Socorro de Ataide Menezes both residing at 7412 Colonial Road, Brooklin, N.Y. 11209 USA through their attorney 2. Pedro Mauro Afonso r/o 169, Bairro Galli, Taleigao Ilhas, Goa .. Petitioners . Versus 1. Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, with office at the Collectorate Building, Panaji Goa 2. Deputy Collector, with office at the Collectorate Ilhas Goa 3. Shri Uttam Yesso Kerkar (since deceased through his legal representatives) 2 (a) Smt. Bhagirathi Uttam Kerkar widow of Uttam Yesso Kerkar (b) Shri Santosh Uttam Kerkar and his wife (c) Smt. Shrada Santosh Kerkar (d) Shri Sharad Uttam Kerkar and wife (e) Smt. Sujata Sharad Kerkar (f) Shri Madhukar Uttam Kerkar (g) Smt. Mamta Madhukar Kerkar (h) Gurudas Uttam Kerkar and wife (i) Smt. Hema Gurudas Kerkar (j) Sudesh Uttam Kerkar and wife (k) Smt. Susha Sudesh Kerkar (l) Shri Shailesh Uttam Kerkar all residing at H.N.562 Gorbhat, Taleigao, Ilhas Goa. .. Respondents Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 7 th December, 2010 Pronounced on : 15 th December, 2010 ORDER : Heard Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 3 2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs : (a) to declare that the Order dated 21.12.1992 in TNC/183/5th Amendment/TAL/92 or TNC/183/5th Amendment /TAL/98 and all the subsequent proceedings are illegal, null and void. (b) to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Order dated 21.12.1992 in TNC/183/5th Amendment/TAL/92 or TNC/183/5th Amendment / TAL/98 and all the subsequent proceedings and to direct the Mamatdar to decide the tenancy issue or whether Shri Uttam Yesso Kerkar was a tenant of the paddy field known as Xilvanchi Tolloy or Shavanchi Tolloy, situated at Taleigao which belongs to legal representatives of the late Dr. Antonio Afonso uninfluenced by the illegal findings rendered in TNC/183/5th Amendment /TAL/92 or TNC/183/5th Amendment /TAL/98 uninfluenced by the illegal findings rendered in TNC/183/5th Amendment/TAL/92 or TNC/183/5th Amendment /TAL/98. 3. The only ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 29th December, 1992 passed by Shri K. M. Lotlikar, Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka is without jurisdiction in as much as Shri K. 4 M. Lotlikar was not appointed as Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and as such, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Uttam Yesso Kerkar (since deceased) for the purchase of paddy field. 4. Mr. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Writ Petition no.792/2009 involving identical issue has been admitted by this Court on 24th June, 2010 and, therefore, this petition also deserves to be admitted. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are guilty of gross delay and laches in filing the present petition. The order impugned was passed on 29th December, 1992 and the present petition challenging the said order has been filed on 3rd May, 2010. The petitioners have not explained the reasons for not challenging the said order for such a long time. On this ground alone, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. In so far as Writ Petition No.792/2009 upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. D'Costa is concerned, perusal of the record discloses that in the said writ petition, the petitioner challenged several 5 orders including the order passed by the Mamlatdar. Therefore, the order passed in the said writ petition does not advance the case of the petitioners. 6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA