1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2011 1. Shri Upasso Putu Gaonkar 2. Smt. Vatsala Laxman Gaonkar, All r/o. H.No.171, Dessaiwaddo, Paroda, Goa. 3. Smt. Laxmi Putu Gaonkar (since deceased) …. Petitioners V/s 1. Shri Piedade Fernandes, 2. Shri Sebastiao Fernandes (since deceased) Through legal heirs: (a) Smt. Carmelina Fernandes (b) Kumari Cararina Fernandes (c) Shri Jose Manuel Fernandes (d) Kumara Coni Fernandes (e) Shri Savio Fernandes (f) Shri Ranjeet Fernandes (g) Shri Andrew Fernandes (h) Shri Vency Fernandes 3. Shri Mario Fernandes All r/o. H.No.273, Near railway station, Majorda, Salcete, Goa. 4. Shri Saustan Chandreshwar Devesthan, Represented by its attorney Vishwas Faldessai, Parvat, Paroda-Goa. …. Respondents Shri C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 2nd DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Reference Court dated 19/04/2011, 8/06/2011 and 18/11/2011 whereby applications to defer the hearing of the reference proceedings filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that an issue of tenancy was referred to the learned Mamlatdar which was decided in favour of the petitioners, but however, the learned Deputy Collector set aside the 3 declaration of tenancy in favour of the petitioners by order dated 29/03/2011. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that a further revision has been preferred by the petitioners which is pending before the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the issue of tenancy has not been finally disposed of it was not open to the learned Judge to proceed with the hearing of the reference proceedings and, as such, the impugned orders passed by the learned Reference Court deserve to be quashed and set aside and the reference proceedings be stayed until the final disposal of the reference proceedings. 5. On the other hand, Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners are not claiming to be the tenants of respondents no.1 to 3 but their claim of tenancy is only against respondent no.4. Learned Counsel further points out that considering the said stand of the petitioners, the question of deciding an issue of tenancy involving respondents no.1 to 3 does not arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the reference proceedings is essentially a dispute of title between the respondents no.1 to 3 on one hand and respondent no.4 4 on the other hand, though there is no dispute with regard to the claim of tenancy as against respondent no.4, herein. Learned Counsel further points out that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners and, as such, the question of interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and the undisputed facts which emerge from the respective pleadings of the parties is that the claim of tenancy of the petitioners is only against respondent no.4. It is also contended by Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent no.4 is not disputing the tenancy as far as the petitioners are concerned with regard to the property belonging to them. As such, the question of involving respondents no.1 to 3 in a claim of tenancy put forward by the petitioners does not arise at all. The reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are basically to decide as to whether the land acquired is a part and parcel of the property belonging to respondents no.1 to 3 or respondent no.4 on the other hand. In case the Reference Court comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to respondent no.4 only, in 5 such an event the question of tenancy would evolve in the present proceedings, but however it appears that there is no dispute between them on that count as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. As such, as the respondents no.1 to 3 are not involved in the alleged claim of tenancy put forward by the petitioners. I find that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the prayer to defer the hearing of the reference proceedings as claimed by the petitioners at this stage. The Reference Court would have to proceed with the reference proceedings to decide as to whether the land acquired is in ownership of respondents no.1 to 3 or respondent no.4, herein. As such, at this stage there is no question of adjourning the reference proceedings sine die. 8. Subject to the above, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned orders. The above petition stands accordingly disposed of. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-