-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2011 Shri Tajoddin Imam Hussain Shiledar, s/o. Imam Hussain Shiledar, 40 years of age, r/o. Meerabai Hublikar, Lalbag, Karapur, Sanquelim, Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The State Through the Mamlatdar of Sattari Having Office at Mamlatdar Building, Valpoi, Sattari, Goa. 2. Shri Pratapsingh Rauji Rane, s/o. Shri Rauji Rane, of major age, r/o. Sanquelim, Goa. 3. Administrative Tribunal, Goa Panaji, Goa. The above are registered addresses of the parties. …... Respondents Mr. S. D Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Vahidulla and Mr. Anup Gaonkar, Advocates for the Respondent no.2. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 21 st September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. S. Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent no.1 and Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri S. Vahidulla, Advocate for the -2- Respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Respondents waive service. 3. The only short grievance pressed by the Petitioner in the above Petition is that the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order dated 15.11.2010 has permitted the Respondent no.2 to be not only an Intervener in the Land Revenue Appeal no. 47 of 2010, but also added the said Respondent no.2 as a party to the said Appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Tribunal has permitted the intervention of the Respondent no.2 in the said Appeal, there was no justification for the Tribunal to implead the Respondent no.2 as a party thereof. 4. Shri Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, in fact, points out that his prayer was for intervention and in the alternative to be impleaded as party thereof. As such, the learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that the Respondent no.2 does not wish to be impleaded as a party thereof, but only as an Intervener to the said Appeal. 5. Hence, the direction in the impugned Order dated 15.11.2010 to add the Respondent no.2 as a party to the Appeal stands quashed and set aside. The Respondent no.2 shall be heard as an Intervener in the Appeal and shall be entitled to all the liberties as an Intervener thereafter. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. -3- 6. Rule disposed of the in the above terms. The parties to act on the duly authenticated copy of this Order. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*