-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 478 OF 2011 1. Maria Virgina De Matos Sequeira 2. Jorge Anibal De Matos Sequeira 3. Vitor Manuel De Matos Sequeira 4. Nidia Maria De Matos Sequeira 5. Maria Celia Filomena De Matos Sequeira Tadeu 6. Maria Vanda De Matos Sequeira Through their duly constituted Attorney Shri Bhalchandra S. Bakhale, residing at 'Swatantrya', Plot No. 3, H. No. S/867, Near Talsazor, Aquem, Alto, Margao, Goa. …... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Government Quarters, Bhatulem, Panaji, Goa. 2. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. ….... Respondents. (Above all are the Regd. addresses) Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate with Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. N. Kholkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 29 th November, 2011. -2- ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. 3. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 30.05.2011, passed by the Collector, North Goa District, in an application filed by the Petitioner to return the properties claimed by them under Section 15 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964, (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'). 4. Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the Collector has erroneously considered that the mining concessions did not continue to vest in view of Section 5 (4) of the said Act and, as such, the lands did not vest on the Respondent no.1. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the properties have been declared as Evacuee Properties under the provisions of Section 5(4) of the said Act and, as such, the question of applying Section 6(2) of the said Act does not arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Collector has erroneously appreciated the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as well as the provisions of the Abolition of the Mining Concession Act, 1987 and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner -3- was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the said application. After taking me through the impugned Order, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out the infirmities committed by the Collector whilst passing the impugned Order and submitted that it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, Shri S. S. Kantak, does not dispute the legal propositions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel, I find that Shri Sardessai is justified to contend that as the properties of the Petitioners were declared to be evacuee properties under the provisions of Section 5(4) of the said Act, the question of applying of provisions of Section 6(2) of the said Act to defeat the claim of the Petitioner would not arise at all. The Collector has erroneously relied upon the provisions of Section 6(2) of the said Act to come to the conclusion that the Petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the said application as the said provisions were not applicable to the facts of this case. On this short point alone, the impugned Order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Collector be directed to decide the application filed by the Petitioners dated 14.10.2010 afresh after hearing the concerned parties in accordance with law. The Collector will also have to consider that in view of the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu Mining Concession (Abolition and declaration as Mining Lease) Act, 1987, the mining concessions were deemed to be leases under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As such, the question of holding that the mining leases have elapsed before coming -4- into force of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and declaration as Mining Lease) Act, 1987 does not arise at all. The effect of non- renewal under the said Act would also have to be considered afresh by the Collector. All these contentions will have to be considered by the Collector whilst considering the application afresh. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 30.05.2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Collector, North Goa District, is directed to decide the application filed by the Petitioners dated 14.10.2010 afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in any case within three months from today. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*