IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 836 OF 2009 NILKANTH S. KANDOLKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI LUIS FRANCISCO LOBO AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. G. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. T. Lobo, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 & 2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 25th June, 2010 Order: Heard. 2. The contention raised by Shri Agni, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of this Court dated 15/12/2009 ought to be continued till the Administrative Tribunal decides the application for condonation of delay dated 9/10/2009 for filing an appeal against the order of the Collector dated 23/02/1995. 3. Ms. Lobo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents nos.1 & 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no question of extending the stay granted by this Court on 15/12/2009, as the same was granted by this Court with the clear understanding that the petitioner herein would file a civil suit and obtain appropriate orders from the Civil Court. 4. It is admitted that RCS No.1/2010 has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pernem and in the said suit, both the parties have filed applications for interim reliefs which are pending. 5. The controversy between the parties leading to the filing of this Writ Petition by the petitioner is as stated herein below and for that the parties are referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the application filed by the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal. 6. The dispute relates to property surveyed under no.107/1 of Village Tuem. The names of the petitioner/applicant along with those of respondents nos.5,6 and 7 along with the heirs of Norbert Wiseman Sequeira, who are respondents nos.3 & 4, were appearing in the occupant's column. 7. Respondents nos.1 & 2 purchased the said property from the said Sequeira by sale deed dated 5/06/1971 and after that filed an application to the Collector, purporting it to be an application filed under Section 103 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. Notices appear to have been ordered to be issued to the respondents including the petitioner therein and the learned Collector allowed the said application on 23/02/1995 and directed the Mamalatdar, Pernem to delete the name of the respondents i.e. the said Sequeiras and Kandolkars from Form No.I & XIV. 8. Nothing happened thereafter of consequence and then the respondents nos.1 & 2 filed another application dated 18/02/2009 to the Mamlatdar to delete the names including those which were entered after 23/02/1995. That application has been dismissed by order dated 21/06/2010. 9. The contention of the petitioner/applicant is that they have come to know of the proceedings before the Collector only after they received notice from the Mamalatdar dated 29/07/1993 in proceedings initiated by application dated 18/02/2009 and after coming to know of the order of the Collector dated 23/02/1995 that they have filed the appeal before the Administrative Tribunal with an application for condonation of delay, assailing the order of the Collector dated 23/02/1995. 10. The petitioner/applicant has already filed a civil suit. Both the parties have filed applications for interim reliefs in the said civil suit. The applications are pending. Considering the facts of the case as narrated herein above, it is desirable that the interim order of this Court dated 15/12/2009 should remain in force till such time the Administrative Tribunal disposes of the application for condonation of delay/appeal filed by the petitioners which is pending before the Administrative Tribunal. 11. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH