IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2010 MR. MOHAN S. FADTE AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MR. RAJENDRA K. VOLVOIKAR AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. None for respondent no.3, though served. Mrs. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.4, 5, and 6. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 8th April, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.4 to 6. None for respondent no.3, though served. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the common judgment and order dated 10th February, 2010 by which the Tribunal disposed of Mundkar Revision Application Nos.6 and 7 of 2007 challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 21st December, 2006 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was dismissed. 3. All the three Tribunals below have concurrently held against the petitioners and have found merit in the case set up by respondent nos.1 and 2 that they are mundkars of the petitioners. The only ground urged by the petitioners is that the order passed by the Mamlatdar declaring respondent nos.1 and 2 as the mundkars was not passed after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein. 4. Both the authorities below held against the petitioners and I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error having been committed by the Administrative Tribunal as well as Deputy Collector while passing orders. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is limited to see that the subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within bounds of their authority. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA