1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2011 Shri Sadanand Gopinath Kanekar, Major of age, represented by his Attorney, Shri Dayanand Sadanand Kanekar, Major of age, Resident of Kodal, Sankhelim-Goa. …. Petitioner V/s 1. Shri Pratapsingh Rauji Rane, son of late Rauji Rane, Major, landlord. 2. Shri Fatesingh Rauji Rane, son of late Rauji Rane, Major, landlord. 3. Shri Rajsingh Satroji Rane, son of late Satroji Rane, major, landlord, All residents of Golden Acres, Culan, Karapur, Sankhelim-Goa. 4. Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Panaji-Goa, Represented by its President. 5. Deputy Collector and S.D.O., ….deleted Bicholim-Goa. 6. Jt. Mamlatdar-II of Bicholim, Bicholim-Goa. 7. Shri Gangaram V. Patil, Major, Resident of Kodal, Karapur, Sankhelim-Goa. 2 8. Smt. Renuka Gangaram V. Patil, Resident of Kodal, Karapur, Sankhelim-Goa. …. Respondents Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. V. Palyekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri S. Vahidullah, Advocate for Respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 16th NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3. Respondents no.4 & 5 have been deleted. Respondent no.7 is present in person and also on behalf of respondent no.8. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Shri S. Vahidullah, learned Counsel wavies service on behalf of the respondents nos.1 to 3. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Tenancy Revision Application No.5/2009 whereby the revision preferred by the 3 petitioner came to be rejected. The order impugned in the said revision was passed by the Deputy Collector whereby by order dated 12/02/2009 the appeal preferred by the respondents nos.1 to 3 was allowed and, consequently, the purchase certificate and the changes made in the survey record on the basis of the impugned order dated 28/09/1995 were ordered to be cancelled and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court to proceed in accordance with law after due service. 4. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that despite of the fact that the petitioners had duly paid the purchase price to the respondents, nevertheless, the Courts below by the impugned order have condoned the delay of twelve and a half year on the ground that the service was not effected on the respondents nos.1 to 3 at the time when the purchase certificate was issued. The learned Counsel further pointed out that despite of the fact that respondents nos. 1 to 3 had received compensation they chose to file the application to set aside the purchase certificate and seek condonation of delay though the transaction with regard to the purchase was completed and the rights had accrued to the 4 petitioners as contemplated under the provisions of Goa Agricultural and Tenancy Act, 1964. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has claimed to be the tenant of only an area of 8,000 square metres of Survey No.108 of Karapur village of Bicholim Taluka and, as such, the question of claiming any further area in the said survey number does not arise, as such, the tenancy rights are restricted only to such area and not to the whole property surveyed under no.108. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the procedure as contemplated in the Agricultural Tenancy Act has not been complied with at the time of issuance of purchase certificate as respondents no.1 to 3 were duly notified and were aware of such proceedings. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel has supported the impugned judgment and pointed out that the property surveyed under no.108 is admeasuring 38,000 square metres while according to him the tenancy of the petitioners is restricted only to 8,000 square metres and, as such, as far as the 5 area of 8,000 square metres is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner is the tenant of the said portion of the property surveyed under no.108. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the said area has not been duly demarcated by the Mamlatdar and, as such, such Authority is to be directed to ensure that the demarcation is done before the purchase certificate takes legal effect. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that subject to such demarcation respondents nos.1 to 3 do not dispute the legality of the purchase certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. Shir S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in answer to the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to3 has stated that as far as demarcation is concerned, the petitioner has no objection that the Mamlatdar be directed to effect such demarcation of an area of 8,000 square metres before the purchase certificate takes legal effect. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and considering the submissions advanced by the Counsel appearing for the respective 6 parties, I find that there is no dispute that as far as the claim of the tenancy of the petitioner is concerned, the area of such tenanted land is restricted to an area of 8,000 square metres of the property surveyed under no.108 of Carapur village of Bicholim Taluka. The only dispute sought to be advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.1 to 3 is that such demarcation has not been carried out by the learned Mamlatdar. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly conceded that in case the petitioner occupies any area beyond the area of 8,000 Square metres, the same shall be returned to the respondents. The statement of learned Counsel is accepted. 8. Taking note of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, I find that the impugned judgment passed by the Deputy Collector dated 21.2.2009 and the order passed by the Tribunal in revision application, dated 16.8.2010 are to be quashed and order of the Joint Mamlatdar dated 28.9.1995 is to be modified accordingly. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following:- O R D E R (i) The impugned Judgment passed by the Deputy 7 Collector dated 12/2/2009 and the Judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 16/8/2010 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The impugned order dated 28/9/1995 of the Joint Mamlatdar is modified. The purchase certificate issued by the Mamlatdar is confirmed to the extent of an area of 8,000 square metres only of the property surveyed under no.108 of Karapur village of Bicholim Taluka. (iii) The Mamlatdar of Bicholim is directed to demarcate the area of 8,000 square metres before the purchase certificate takes legal effect within 3 months from today. (iv) The Mamlatdar shall take into consideration the material on record to ascertain the location of area of 8,000 square metres after hearing both the parties. (v) The survey records in respect of the said survey number shall thereafter be corrected accordingly. (vi) Rule is disposed of in the above terms. 10. Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-