1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.148 OF 2010 Shri Shankar Babani Halarnkar Major of age, R/o. H.No.122, Neare Laxmi Narayan Temple, Headland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. …. Petitioner V/s 1. Smt. Sharayu Kauthankar, (since dec. through LR's) Major of age, housewife, 2. Shri Shridhar Kauthankar, Major in age, 3. Smt. Sarita S. Kauthankar, Major of age, housewife, 4. Shri Ratnakar V. Kauthankar, Major of age, 5. Smt. Ratnamala R. Kauthankar, Major of age, housewife, 6. Shri Mahesh alias Prakash Kauthankar, Major of age, 7. Smt. Jyoti Mahesh alias Prakash Kauthankar, Major of age, housewife, 8. Ms. Shobha V. Kauthankar, Major of age, unmarried, All the above are the residents of, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Headland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama. …. Respondents Ms. Shweta Naik, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G. Vijaychandran, Advocate for Respondents Nos.2 to 7. 2 CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2010 Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of the Administrative Tribunal, in Mundkar Revision Application No.8/2005. 4. The petitioner herein claims to be the mundkar of the respondents in respect of a house which the respondents constructed in the government land, which has been subsequently and specifically granted to the respondents, as Class II occupants, by virtue of order dated 25/01/1985 with certain conditions. 5. The petitioner herein filed an application against the respondents claiming that he was their mundkar. The said application is dated 31/12/1999 and was filed under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (Act, for short) and in which application the petitioner clearly stated that the said house was existing in government land and was existing for the last more than 50 years and the petitioner was occupying the same since last 25 years. 3 The learned Mamlatdar by order dated 31/05/2001 rejected the objection taken by the respondents. The objection taken was that the application was not maintainable as the respondents were not the owners of the suit property, but only lessees and the owners of the property was the government. The Mamlatdar ruled that an inquiry was required to be held. 6. The matter was taken to the Deputy Collector who by order dated 31/01/2002 held that the Mamlatdar was knowing the fact that the land was of the Government and directed the Mamlatdar to dispose of the application. The Mamlatdar by his order dated 31/07/2002 based on the observations of the Deputy Collector dismissed the application. The matter again came before the Deputy Collector, who by his order dated 31/12/2004 dismissed the application. 7. The Administrative Tribunal by judgment dated 9/10/2009 referred to the definition of a “Mundkar” as given in Section 2(p) of the Act and so also to the definition of “Bhatkar” given in Section 2(f) of the Act and came to the conclusion that the land was owned by the government and this was mentioned by the petitioner himself. The learned Administrative Tribunal further rejected the petitioner's contention that once the land was granted by the government, the ownership stood transferred to the grantee and moreover the Act by 4 virtue of Section 39 exempted lands owned or held by the Government from the applicability of the Act. 8. Section 2(p) of the Mundkar Act reads as follows: “Section 2(p) “Mundkar” means a person who, with the consent of the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar lawfully resides with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house with or without obligation to render any services to the bhatkar and includes a member of his family.” Section 2(f) of the Mundkar Act which defines Bhatkar reads as under: ““Bhatkar” means a person who own the land on which the mundkar has a dwelling house.” Section 39 deals with the exemptions and provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to the land owned or held by Government, of any State in India, Government of India, a local authority or Provedoria da Assistencia publica. 9. The main submission of Ms. Shweta Naik, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, is that the application filed by the petitioner could not have been disposed of without holding an inquiry, as earlier ordered by the Mamlatdar by order dated 31/05/2001. To support the submission, Ms. Naik has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Shri Vasudev Pandurang Naik & Anr. V/s. Shri Krishna 5 Vithoba Xete Tilve (since deceased, thorugh LR's) and Ors. (2006 (1) G.L.R. 585), wherein this Court observed that the Mamlatdar was obliged to hold an inquiry in terms of Rule 14, sub-rules (7),(8) & (9) of the Mundkars Rule and the question whether the applicants could be declared as Mundkars of the respondents ought to have been decided only after holding an inquiry as provided under the Act and the Rules and therefore the Mamlatdar as well as the Administrative Tribunal were not justified in holding that the application was not maintainable. 10. Sub-rule 14(4) of the Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Rules, 1977 requires the Mamlatdar to endorse on the application to the effect that it was duly subscribed and verified, etc. Sub-rule (5) provides that the Mamlatdar shall reject an application:- (a) Where the applicant declines to make a statement on oath under sub-rule (2); or (b) Where the applicant is willing to make or has made a statement on oath under sub-rule (2) but fails to furnish the particulars specified in section 20 or rule 9, as the case may be, within the time fixed under sub-rule (2); or (c) Where it appears upon face of the application- (i) that the property or the relief claimed is not one of the kinds specified in the Act; or (ii) that an application is barred by limitation; (d) where the applicant declines to subscribe to verify the application as required by sub-rule (3) or (4). (6) Where it appears to the Mamlatdar that the subject of the application is not within his jurisdiction he shall return the application to the concerned party to be presented before the Competent Authority having jurisdiction. (7) Where application is admissible, the Mamlatdar shall receive the same. He shall then fix a convenient day and 6 place for trial of the case and shall issue, at the expense of applicant, notice in the Form VII to the opponent. He shall require the applicant to appear with his documents, if any, and summon witnesses if any, to appear on the day and at the place fixed (emphasis supplied). 11. In the case of Shri Vasudev Pandurang Naik & Anr. V/s. Shri Krishna Vithoba Xete Tilve (since deceased, thorugh LR's) and Ors. (supra), a preliminary objection was taken that the applicants were already declared as Mundkars in respect of a house situated in Chalta No.45 of P.T. Sheet No.109 vide order dated 19/11/1984 and on that count had contended that the application was liable to be dismissed and after hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar by his order dated 30/11/1999 had upheld the objections raised by the opponents and had dismissed the applications filed by the applicant. It was not the case, unlike this case, where the applicants have themselves clearly admitted that the land belongs to the Government. 12. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case with a direction to the Mamlatdar to conduct an inquiry. The view taken by the learned Administrative Tribunal cannot be said to be either illegal or perverse, considering the facts of the case. The respondents had encroached on government land and had built the house illegally. When the petitioner came to occupy it in the year 1974 or thereabout, the respondents were not the owners of land. From the year 1985, they have been granted occupancy rights, class II. The petitioner's 7 application could have been dismissed by the Mamlatdar in terms of Rule 14(5)(c)(i) of the said Rules. That exercise has now been done by the Administrative Tribunal. 13. This is not a fit case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Writ Petition, therefore, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-