-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2010 Mr. Marvin S. Gonsalves & 3 Ors. …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 12 Ors. …... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 6. Mr. R. V. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent no. 8 – discharged. CORAM :- A. S. OKA F. M. REIS, JJ. Date : 21 st June, 2010. P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. We have heard the learned Advocate General appearing for first to sixth Respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for eighth Respondent tenders letter dated 7th June, 2010, addressed to him by the eighth Respondent. On the basis of the said letter, he seeks discharge. Accordingly, the Advocate is granted discharge. 2. This Petition arises out of direction issued by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition no. 102/2009, by Order dated 18th February, 2009. By the said Order dated 18th February, 2009, this Court issued following directions : -2- “The petitioners claim that there are unauthorized constructions carried out by the private respondents on the agricultural land and without compliance of any of the statutory provisions. It is averred that they were tenants of land who even received compensation as agricultural tenants and the raising of construction is contrary to the law in all respects. They claim to have made a representation to the Administrator and Collector on 28.1.2009, requesting the said Authority to prevent and restrain respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 from putting up any construction on the property indicated in the writ petition. It is also averred that a show cause notice had been issued by the Administrator on 12.12.2008 to one of the parties. However, no action has been taken in relation to other parties. On this premise, a prayer has been made in the writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Administrator to take action and initiate proceedings under the Goa Land (Prohibition) Act against the said respondents and also directing them to restore the land to its original condition, after demolition of the structure, in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2)(c) and 33(1)(III) of the Land Revenue Code. 2. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State fairly stated that the competent Authority would look into the entire matter and even the grievances made and details given in the present writ petition and pass appropriate orders, within six weeks from today. -3- 3. We find the stand of the Government to be fair and we expect the Administrator and the Collector to act in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and in any case not later than six weeks, preferably, after hearing the petitioners and in accordance with law.” 3. In terms of the Order passed by this Court which is quoted above, inquiry is in progress before the Deputy Collector and S. D. O, Panaji. During the course of the said inquiry, the Petitioners are relying upon the alleged orders of declaration of tenancy dated 20th December, 1971 and 10th December, 1971, made in case no. CAJ/ARC/PRC/18/71 and case no. CAJ/ARC/PRC/10/-11/71, respectively. It appears that during the course of the inquiry, Mamlatdar was examined before the Deputy Collector and S. D. O. As far as Order dated 20th December, 1971 is concerned, the Mamlatdar stated that he was not aware if by the said Order, one Raiu Ishwar Gawas was declared to be a tenant. He stated that the said order may be bogus. He stated that he was not in a position to trace the Order of declaration of tenancy in the office of Mamlatdar. In response to a question in the cross examination, he stated that there is no record of case no. CAJ/ARC/PRC/18/71 in the office of the Mamlatdar. The grievance of the Petitioners is that they applied for certified copies of the aforesaid two Orders of declaration of tenancy but the copies are not provided. Another grievance is that though an application for direction to the Mamlatdar to produce the records of the said cases was submitted before the Deputy Collector and S. D. O., the same has been completely overlooked by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Deputy Collector and -4- S.D.O. is proceeding on the footing that the Orders of declaration of tenancy are not genuine. Therefore, in this Writ Petition, prayer has been made directing the Mamlatdar to make available copies of the Orders of declaration of tenancy. The second prayer is for directing the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, to conduct an inquiry to ascertain as to how the Orders are not traceable in the office of the Mamlatdar. The third prayer is for transfer of the inquiry. 4. At this stage, we may note that this Court had called for the Records and Proceedings of two Civil Suits disposed of by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. Reason for calling for the records is that, according to the Petitioners, a certified copy of the Order dated 15th December, 1971, passed by the Mamlatdar of Goa, Panaji, in case no. CAJ/ARC/PRC/18/71 is on record of the said disposed of Spl. Civil Suit no. 128/1982. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners desire to produce a certified copy of the said document on record of the said Suit. The record of the Suit was ordered to be kept in a sealed envelope, which has been produced before us and under our orders, the sealed envelope has been opened. We find that a document of certified copy of the Order dated 15.12.1971 of Mamlatdar of Goa, Panaji, forms part of the record of the said suit and the same has been marked as exhibit Pw.1/A. 5. The Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, is holding an inquiry in terms of direction issued by Division Bench of this Court and the said direction was issued in terms of the statement made by the learned Advocate General before this Court. The issue regarding the existence of orders relied upon by the Petitioners, which are referred in prayers (a) and (b) of the Petition, will have to be gone into by -5- the Deputy Collector and S.D.O. Whether the copies of the Orders dated 20th December, 1971 and 10th December, 1971 are genuine or not, is a matter to be decided in inquiry. It is for the Officer conducting the inquiry to decide as to whether the record relating to the tenancy cases is really misplaced or not. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has invited our attention to the challenge in the Writ Petition no. 506/2009. The contention raised in the said Petition is that Decrees passed in two Civil Suits are null and void. The Petitioners can always agitate before the Deputy Collector and S.D.O. that the Decrees passed in the said two Suits are null and void. It is for the Deputy Collector and S. D. O. to deal with the said contention if raised by the Petitioners. 6. As stated earlier, the Petitioners desire to produce a certified copy of document at exhibit P.w.1/A in Spl. Civil Suit no. 128/1982 before the Deputy Collector and S. D. O. The inquiry in terms of the Order of this Court, is already delayed. To avoid further delay, we direct the Registrar of this Court to make available a true xerox copy of the said document at exhibit P.w.1/A to the Counsel for the Petitioners. The said true copy shall be certified by appropriate Officer of this Court as directed by the Registrar. If such true copy is produced by the Petitioners before the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., he shall treat the same as a true certified copy of the document at exhibit P.w.1/A, produced in Spl. Civil Suit no. 128/1982. It is for the Deputy Collector and S.D.O. to decide whether the document at exhibit P.w.1/A is genuine or otherwise. 7. Subject to what is observed in paragraph 5 and 6 above, we dispose of the present Petition by keeping all contentions of the parties open. We direct the -6- Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months from today. We direct the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, to fix the proceedings pending before him for directions on 28th June, 2010 at 3.00 p.m. We direct the parties who are represented by Advocates in this Court to appear before the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, on the date and time fixed under this Order. We also direct that after a true copy of the aforesaid Order at exhibit Pw.1/A is made available to the Counsel for the Petitioners, the record of the disposed of Suits be sent back to the concerned Court. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*