1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2008. Shri Bruno Jose Dias, Major, Indian Natinal, r/o Ilhas Goa, represented by his attorney Mr. Babacier Dias, major, married, Indian National, r/o St. Cruz, Ilhas Goa. .... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Confrarias Fundo Reunido de Igreja De S. Pedro, duly represented by attorney of Confrarias, Shri Numenio D'Souza, Special Attorney of Confrarias, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. 2. Laxmikant Subray Kundaikar, r/o Near Police Station, Old Goa. 3. The Deputy Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Ms. S. Linhares, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. at* 2 Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by Administrative Tribunal rendering Tenancy Revision Application No. 38/2006. 3. The Tribunal has passed operative order which reads as follows :- “The Revision is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 27.7.2006 of the Deputy Collector is quashed and set aside. The Judgment and order dated 12.12.2003 of the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi is modified as follows : The application of the opponent No.2 ( applicant herein ) dated 24.4.2003 is partly accepted. The injunction granted vide order dated 27.2.2003 shall continue to operate only in respect of the properties bearing Survey Nos. 30/3, 29/2 and 32/4 of Village Bainguinim in Tiswadi Taluka till final disposal of the application for declaration of the Applicant/Respondent no.1 herein dated 18.2.2003. The injunction order dated 27.2.2003 stands vacated in respect of the property bearing survey No.3/3 of village Bainguinim in Tiswadi Taluka. However, the original opponent No.2 i.e. Applicant herein shall not do any construction in the property bearing Survey No.3/3 of Village Bainguinim in Tiswadi Taluka beyond the plinth of the house already constructed and existing in the said property, till the final disposal of the application for declaration of Tenancy”. (Quoted from judgment dated 11.4.2008 at page 235 of paper book ) at* 3 4. Petitioner's grievance is only in relation to underlined portions above quoted order. 5. The ground urged is that the Tribunal was acting in revisional jurisdiction, and should not have interfered in the judgment delivered by Dy. Collector in his order dated 27.7.2006 directing to maintain status quo till disposal of tenancy application. 6. It is not in dispute that by judgment and order passed by this Court between same parties in Writ Petition No. 132/2006, this Court had maintained the order of injunction granted in favour of the present respondents. 7. This being undisputed position, the petitioner has failed to show as to how a different view is possible and permissible by the revenue authorities. 8. On this sole ground, no interference or indulgence is unwarranted in the impugned order, and therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. Rule is discharged. No costs. A. H. JOSHI, J at* at*