IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2008 JAGANATH KAMBLI ... Petitioner Versus DEVENDRA RAGHUNATH DESHPRABHU AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.10. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 17th January, 2008 ORAL ORDER Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. This petition is directed against Order dated 13-12-2007 of the Deputy Collector dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claiming to be a tenant filed an application dated 23-12-1996 in respect of property surveyed under No.105/4 of Parsem Village. The said application was filed along with three affidavits. Subsequently by virtue of gift deed dated 21-3-1996 a part of the property came to be gifted by some of the Respondents in favour of Respondent No.10. Pursuant to the said gift deed survey No.105/4-A came to be carved out on 14-7-1997. One Chandrakant Kambli had also filed a separate application claiming tenancy in respect of a portion of same survey No.105/4. The Petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction on or about 27-8-2003 and on the same day an ex-parte Order was made by the learned Mamlatdar in favour of the Petitioner and subsequently status quo was ordered to be maintained. The Deputy Collector, in revision has set aside the said order and has dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that both the Courts below did not consider the three affidavits filed by the Petitioner along with the main application nor the two affidavits filed along with the application for temporary injunction. Admittedly, survey No.105/4 stood recorded in the name of Raghuraj Deshprabhu, the father of some of the Respondents and after the gift deed part of it under Section 105/4-A in the name of Respondent No.10. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case that the Petitioner was the tenant in possession of the suit property. In my view, the affidavits filed on behalf of the Petitioner would not have made any difference even if considered. The said affidavits are in conflict with the case of the Petitioner that the entire cashew grove is enjoyed and possessed by the Petitioner and the said Chandrakant Kambli. Moreover, the same could not have displaced the presumption which was available to the Respondents by virtue of Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the said presumption is also now available in favour of the tenants by virtue of which Notification No.1/193-RD published on Gazette dated 9th November, 2006. It may be so. As far as the receipts produced by the Petitioner, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that there was nothing to suggest that they pertain to the suit property. Both the Courts have also come to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not have excise licenses in case the Petitioner was extracting cashew juice. Both the Courts having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case, the Mamlatdar was not justified in directing maintenance of status quo. The Deputy Collector was certainly justified in disturbing such an order. There is nothing exceptional in this case for this Court to interfere in supervisory jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Nevertheless considering the year in which the application was filed by the Petitioner, the learned Mamlatdar is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one year. Needless to say any observations made herein would not come in the way of the Mamlatdar, in disposal of the said application. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.