IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008 MR. ANTHONY D. GONSALVES ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Mahesh Amonkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Govt Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 25th February, 2008 P.C. Heard Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Ms Linhares, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2007. Without going into the merits whether this writ petition would be maintainable, which according to Ms Linhares, is not maintainable in the light of the unreported order passed by this Court on 14.9.2005 in the Appeal from Order No.65/2004 in the case of Shanu J. Velip(since deceased represented by his L.Rs.) the same can be disposed of on merits. The petitioner's land was acquired and at his behest a reference came to be made pursuant to his application dated 29.01.1997 and the same was registered as L.A.C. No. 05/2000. The petitioner was applicant in the said case and the notice was sent to him by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji but it was returned with an affidavit of the bailiff stating that he had gone for service to the house of Anthony D. Gonsalves which was found locked and the said house was pointed out by one Mr. Domingo D'Souza and the notice was pasted on the front door. As the petitioner did not appear on 10.08.2001, the reference came to be dismissed. On 5.5.2004 the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.8.2001 and on 2.6.2004 filed an application for condonation of delay of 996 days which came to be rejected by the impugned order and an affidavit in support of the said application came to be filed on 31.1.2005. The case of the petitioner was that in the first week on April, 2004, he had enquired about the reference in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D.(Cell), Altinho, Panaji and he was informed that the matter was already decided by the Court and thereafter, the petitioner and his Advocate appeared before the Court in the second week of April, 2004 and sought inspection of the file and came to know that the matter has proceeded ex-parte as the petitioner had remained absent and the order was passed on 10.8.2001 dismissing the reference. The petitioner also stated that he came to know that he was served by the bailiff by pasting the notice on the door of one Mr. Anthony Gonsalves. As per the petitioner, there are four persons by name Anthony Gonsalves in Dondo, Goa Velha and it is not known as to on whose door the notice was pasted by the bailiff since there are four different houses of four different persons by the same name of Anthony Gonsalves. The learned trial Court observed and, in my view rightly, that the onus that the petitioner was not served, was upon him. The learned trial Court also stated that though the petitioner stated that there were four other persons by name of Anthony Gonsalves, the petitioner did not state that there were four persons by name Anthony D Gonsalves, who was none other than the petitioner. The learned trial Court concluded that the petitioner had approached with false plea that he was not served in the case and held that there was an inordinate delay of 996 days in filing the application. The trial Court noted that the conduct of the petitioner reflected malafide. In the order of this Court dated 14.2.2005, the notices of appeal were not sent by registered post and were accepted by one Nayesh Govind Velip and the trial Court had observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the said Nayesh Govind Velip was a minor. This Court held that even if the Nayesh Govid Velip was treated as a minor, that would not have affected the validity of the service and the presumption of service had clearly arisen on the facts of the said case. In this case, the bailiff of the Court has submitted his report in his official capacity and there was no reason to disbelieve the said report. He had no interest in the matter. He had made enquiries with one Domingo D'Souza to locate the house of the petitioner and then only had pasted the notice on the front door of the house pointed out by him. The petitioner states that there are four persons with the name of Anthony Gonsalves in the said ward. He must have also known that there is also one Domingo D'Souza, as mentioned by the bailiff on his report. Least the petitioner could do, to rebut the facts stated by the bailiff, was to examine the said Domingo D'Souza, which the petitioner failed to do. There was clear presumption of service in the facts of the present case in the light of the report of service given by the bailiff on affidavit and that could not be rebutted by the bare and self serving statement of the petitioner alone. It appears that the petitioner was indolent almost for a period of 7 years in not trying to find out as to what had happened to his reference. The averments of para. 6 of the application are also not supported by any corroborating evidence. In my view, the impugned order cannot be faulted, when examined, either in a writ or appellate jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. SMA