1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2011 1. Smt. Parvati M. Naik, Major, Widow, 80 years of age, 2. Shri Sadanand M. Naik, Major, 58 years of age, married, Agricultural farmer and his wife, 3. Smt. Jeevan Sadanand Naik, Major, married, housewife, 4. Shri Bhanudas M. Naik, Major 43 years of age, married, Agricultural farmer and his wife, 5. Smt. Vishranti B. Naik, Major, married, housewife, 6. Shri Suhas M. Naik, Major, 35 years of age, married, service and his wife, 7. Smt. Suhani S. Naik, Major, married, housewife, All residing at Devadya, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa. 8. Shri Gajanan Timlo Naik, Agriculturist and his wife, 9. Smt. Prema G. Naik, Both Major, married, Residing at Devadya, Shiroda, Ponda Goa. 10. Shri Pandurang Bablo Naik, Major, widower, agricultural farmer, 2 11. Shri Dayanand P. Naik, Major, married, agricultural farmer and his wife, 12. Smt. Mangala D. Naik, Major, married, housewife, 13. Shri Subhash P. Naik, Major, unmarried, agricultural farmer, All residing at Devadde, Shiroda, Ponda Goa. 14. Smt. Kusha J. Naik, Major, widow, 15. Shri Damodar J. Naik, Major, 26 years of age, unmarried, Agricultural farmer, 16. Shri Somnath J. Naik, Major, 24 years of age, unmarried, Agricultural farmer, 17. Shri Rupesh J. Naik, Major, 20 years of age, unmarried, Agricultural farmer, 18. Miss Shubandi J. Naik, Major, spinster, 22 years, unemployed, All residing at Devadya, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa. …. Petitioners V/s 1. Dr. Vishwanath Raguvir Sinai Hede, Major, married, landlord, Residing at Garden Centre, Opposite Police Station, Mapusa Goa. 3 2. Dr. Ramkrishna T. Parkar, Major, landlord. 3. Mr. Pundalik T. Parkar, Major, landlord, 4. Mr. Mahesh T. Parkar, Major, landlord, 5. Mrs. Meena R. Parkar, All r/o. C/o. Kamakshi Nursing Home, Thal Shiroda, Ponda Goa. …. Respondents Shri J. Godinho, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents nos.2 to 4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel waive service on behalf of the respondents. 4 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 29/08/2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji in Miscellaneous n Application No.178/11/stay/ERA in Tenancy Revision Application No.29/2011. 4. The main grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners was that the impugned order dated 29/08/2011 was passed ex-parte without hearing the petitioners when according to the petitioners the order of injunction passed by the learned Mamlatdar was in operation from the year 2008. Learned Counsel further pointed out that a revision preferred by the respondent no.1 against the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar wherein respondents nos.2,3 & 4 were also parties came to be rejected by the learned Deputy Collector on 22/03/2011. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that injunction order was operating for such a long period, the Tribunal has acted with gross irregularity in passing an ex-parte order staying operation of temporary injunction. Learned Counsel further pointed out that even an application for modification filed by the petitioners came to be rejected on a specious ground that apprehension of the petitioners was not spelt out from the said application. 5 5. On the other hand, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the impugned order passed by the learned Mamlatdar was without hearing the respondents nos.2,3 & 4. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there was urgency in granting ex-parte order as according to him respondents nos.2,3, & 4 were prevented from using the disputed access to come to their property. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to pass the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the Tribunal was not at all justified to pass an ex- parte order when admittedly the injunction order was operating since the year 2008. It would be appropriate of the Tribunal to issue a notice to the petitioners before such order of injunction was granted . The Tribunal should have considered that granting such an order would permit respondents nos.2,3 & 4 to change the nature of the property which would affect the rights claimed by the petitioners over the suit property. 7. As such, I find that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be justified and deserves to be quashed and set 6 aside. At this stage, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned Counsel pointed out that the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the revision preferred by the respondents nos.2,3 & 4 and by the respondent no.1 as expeditiously as possible as according to them grave and irreparable loss has occasioned to respondents nos.2,3 & 4 on account of the temporary injunction operating against them. However, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that blanket order of injunction granted by the Mamlatdar would prevent them to proceed to their own property. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that respondents nos.2,3 & 4 would not change the nature of the property nor build any road through the disputed access during the pendency of the petition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that until the disposal of the revision petition filed by respondents nos.2,3 & 4, the temporary injunction granted by the learned Mamlatdar would operate against respondents nos.2,3 & 4 to the extent that the interference restrained by the order of the learned Mamlatdar would mean that respondents nos.2,3 & 4 shall not change the nature of the property nor build any road through the disputed 7 access or any construction activity therein until the disposal of the revision petition. The said interim arrangement has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the Tribunal. 9. As such, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 29/08/2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision application no.29/2011 before the Administrative Tribunal, the respondents are restrained from changing the nature of the property and/or building any road or any construction activity in the disputed access. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the said revision petition as well as the revision preferred by the respondent no.1 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18/10/2011 at 10.00 a.m. and abide by its further directions. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-