1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.410 of 2010 Shri Gurunath Pandurang Mote, Aged 65 years, agriculturist, Resident of House no.83, Sakaral Torxem, Pernem, Goa .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Rajdendra Vasudev Deshprabhu (since deceased) Through his Legal heirs, 1(a) Smt. Aparna Rajendra Deshprabhu; 1(b) Shri Vaudev Rajendra Deshprabhu; 1(c) Miss Nayantara Rajendra Deshprabhu 1(d) (Dr.) Mrs. Pavitra Vassudev Deshprabhu; All resident of Naner Wada, Pernem, Goa. 2. Shri Daji Pandu Naik (since deceased) Through his Legal heirs 2(a) Smt. Saraswati Daji Naik; 2(b) Sri Manohar Daji Naik 2(c) Smt. Sundari Manohar Naik; 2(d) Shri Pandurang Daji Naik; All resident of Naik Vaddo, Torxem, Pernem, Goa .. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. 2 Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 8 th December, 2010 Pronounced on : 13 th December, 2010 ORDER : Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : (a) For a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing and setting aside Impugned Order dated 22/12/2009 passed in Tenancy Revision Application No. 10/2009 by the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa and also that of orders dated 12/03/2007 passed by the Learned Joint- I Mamlatdar, Pernem, Goa in Case No.JM-I/TNC/10/2006 and dated 20/04/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector of Pernem Taluka in Case No.DCP/TNC/APL/2-4/2007, after calling for records and proceedings of the cases and examining its legality, propriety and correctness thereof. 3 3. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three authorities have erred in holding that the application filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the survey N.154/0 is barred by principle of res-judicata. He further submitted that the petitioner was declared tenant in respect of the property bearing Survey No.155/04 by order dated 25th March, 1982 only against Vishnu Ganesh Deshprabhu- respondent no.1 to the said application and the other two respondents Rajendra Vassudev Deshprabhu and Daji Pandurang Naik were not served and as such, the principle of res judicata is not attracted. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V. Rajeshwari Vs. T.C. Sarvanabava; (2004) 1 SCC 551, learned Counsel submitted that enquiry ought to have been held by the Mamlatdar in so far as the issue of res-judicata is concerned and, therefore, all the three orders made are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was declared tenant of Vishnu Ganesh Deshprabhu by Mamlatdar, Pernem by order dated 25th March, 1982 in respect of the property bearing Survey No.154/0. In the said 4 application, Rajendra Deshprabhu and Daji Naik were respondent nos. 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, they were not served. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Mamlatdar seeking declaration of tenancy in respect of the very same property against the respondents herein, which was dismissed by Joint Mamlatdar, Pernem on the ground that the issue was already decided and the proceeding was barred by Principle of res- judicata. The Appellate Court and the Revisional Court concurred with the findings given by the Mamlatdar. 5. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner was already declared tenant in respect of Survey No.154/0 by an order dated 25th March, 1982, in which the petitioner had joined Rajendra Deshprabhu and Daji Pandurang Naik as opponents. In the said application filed, he claimed that he was tenant of respondent no.1- Shri Vishnu Ganesh Deshprabhu in respect of the said property. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned orders by which the second application filed against the respondents herein seeking declaration of tenancy was dismissed. 6. The judgment in the case of V. Rajeshwari (supra) 5 does not help the petitioner in as much as in the said case, the Apex Court has held that the dispute in the earlier suit relating to only part of the property in dispute would not necessarily constitute res-judicata for the entire property in dispute in the later suit. The facts in the said case are not at all identical with the facts in the present case. 7. I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and / or 227 of Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA