IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 549 OF 2007 MRS. SEBASTIAN MENDES AND 9 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Abreu Lobo, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Rakhi Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent No.6. Coram:- D. B. BHOSALE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 7th January, 2008 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.07, passed by the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Panaji, Goa by which the petitioners have been held to be the unauthorised occupants of the Government property bearing Survey No.230/1 situated at Village Goa Velha. The Estate Officer has been directed to take possession of the said property under the provisions of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants)Act and Rules. The petitioners contend that they were tenants in the property bearing Survey No.230/1 of Village Goa Velha and they have become deemed purchasers thereof under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". According to Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the properties of the institution, viz. Hospicio do Sagrado Coracao de Maria, including survey No.230/1, were taken over by the Government on 1.1.1977, that is, much after the petitioners became deemed purchasers of the said property and, therefore, the impugned order, in so far as survey No.230/1 is concerned, is without jurisdiction. If that be so, it is open for the petitioners, as observed in para 29 of the impugned Judgment, to seek an appropriate declaration in respect of survey No.230/1 under the provisions the said Act, by making an appropriate application before the Mamlatdar concerned. In the absence of such a declaration, it will not be possible for the petitioners to raise the contention that they were tenants and had become deemed purchasers of the said property. That will have to be examined by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the said Act. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the following Order shall meet the ends of justice : The petitioners are entitled to file an application before the concerned Mamlatdar, as provided for under the provisions of the said Act, seeking an appropriate declaration, within a period of four weeks from today. If such an application is filed by the petitioners, the Mamlatdar shall decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law, bearing in mind the petitioners' claim that they were the tenants on the appointed date and had become the deemed purchasers much before the Government took over the land from the said institution on 1.1.1977. The Mamlatdar shall decide the application, if filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of its filing, after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned. The possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed, for a period of 4 weeks and for a further period of four weeks, if the petitioners file the application seeking declaration as aforestated to enable the petitioners to make an application for continuation of the protection of their possession over S.No.230/1, till disposal of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar within the time-frame. If the petitioners file such application for interim protection, same may be decided within the period of 4 weeks from the date of the said application. It is open for respondent No.6 to intervene in the application that will be filed by the petitioners in pursuance of this order before the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, at Panaji. All contentions of the parties, including respondent No.6, are kept open. While passing this order, we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Mamlatdar shall decide the application, if filed, on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned Judgment. In view of this order, the statement of the learned Advocate General recorded in the Order dated 20.11.2007, renders ineffective. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not press prayer (a) in the writ petition. In so far as prayers (b) and (c) are concerned, Mr. D'Costa submits that the petitioners may be given liberty to adopt an appropriate remedy as may be available to them in law. The liberty as prayed is granted. The writ petition is disposed of. D. B. BHOSALE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.