1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.860 OF 2009 Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956, with its registered office at “Chowgule House” Mormugao Harbour Pin code 403 803, Goa-Inida, represented by its duly Constituted Attorney Mr. R.P.P. Alvenkar, Senior manager (Mines0, resident of Davorlim,, Salcete-Goa. .... Petitioners. Versus 1) Mamlatdar of Sanguem, Sanguem-Goa. 2) Forest Department represented by Range Forest Officer, Sanguem. 3) Shri Adam Khan (since deceased) represented by his legal heirs) 1. Smt. Shakina Bi and ors. ..... Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Seniro Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondents nos.1 and 2. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL ORDER: By this petition the Petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 9/6/009 passed by the Administrative 2 Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.58/2002 by which the appeal preferred by the Respondents nos.3 to 11 against the order dated 8.3.2002 passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.P., Quepem has been dismissed. 2. The Respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 14(3) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 for deletion of the names of Respondents nos. 3 to 11 from the survey records in respect of property bearing survey no.11/2, which was originally granted to Ghanashyam Yeshwant Shet Sigaonkar under Alvara No.1350 dated 5.7.1944 for cultivation purpose. The Deputy Collector ordered detention of the names of the respondents nos. 3 to 11. Appeal no.58 of 2002 preferred by the respondents nos.3 to 11 has been dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal. 3. According to the Petitioners, property bearing survey no.11/2 which was granted to the Petitioner has been in its possession since 24.6.1992. Mr. Lotlilkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners therefore, submitted that by the impugned Judgment, the names of the respondents nos.3 to 11 have been ordered to be deleted from the survey records when factually the Petitioners are in possession of the suit property 3 pursuant to the long lease agreed by Ghanashyam Sigaonkar. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that in terms of Section 14(3) of the Land revenue Code 1968, the the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy to file an application for insertion of its name in the survey records and therefore the present petition be not entertained. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioners to file an application, in terms of Section 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code, 1968, which permits persons claiming right against the Government to file an application before the Collector. Mr. Lotlikar states that the Petitioners shall file such an application within a period of four weeks. In the event the Plaintiffs choses to file such an application within the period of four weeks, the concerned authority having jurisdiction to decide the application in accordance with law. 6. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Needless 4 to mention that all the rival contentions of the parties are kept open. A.P. Lavande, J. Ap/-