1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2001 Shri Shankar Kocharekar, major, married, Indian national, resident of Chapora, Bardez, Goa represented by his Attorney, Mr. Sunil Metar, resident of Chapora, Bardez, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus. 1. Mr. Shrikant Laxman Lad alias Sadashiv Laxman Lad, major, married, Indian national, resident of Khorlim, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.(Since deceased through L.R.) 1(a) Mr.Govind Laxman Lad, Major, brother of the deceased, r/o. Khorlim Xim,Mapusa Goa. 2. Dy. Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 3. Commissioner and Secretary (Revenue) Government of Goa, Secretariat, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram :- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date : - 27 th August, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. This petition by mundkar takes exception to the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Mhapusa on 20.4.2000, setting aside the order passed by Mamlatdar in favour of petitioner and directing a fresh enquiry in respect of objections dated 5.11.1996 filed by the respondents landlord. 2. The petitioner claimed that though he had privately agreed to purchase the properties for a sum of Rs.37,500/- and had paid Rs.31,500/- to the landlord, in view of dispute between himself and neighbouring mundkar, he wanted to pursue his right to purchase the property under the Goa Daman Diu Mundkar (Protection from eviction)Act 1975. He therefore, made an application to the Mamlatdar under section 16 of the Act. The landlord had raised three objections to this application, namely that the application for purchase had not been verified, that the mundkar or his family members, were not residing in the dwelling house for a period of 2 years and that the mundkar had transfered his interest in the dwelling house for a continuous period of 2 years. The landlord had also filed an application for eviction of the mundkar on the ground that the mundkar was not residing in the dwelling house for a continuous period of 2 years. This application was filed on 15.3.1997. On 19.3.1997, the landlord filed an application before the Joint Mamlatdar stating that the matter had been amicably settled (presumably because the petitioner had agreed to purchase the 3 property for Rs.37,500) and, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw the case. In view of this, by his order dated 20.7.1999, the Mamlatdar directed the petitioner to verify the contents of the application for purchase of dwelling house and rejected the other objections raised by the landlord. 3. Possibly because the transaction sored out, the landlord took the matter in revision before the Deputy Collector, who ordered enquiry in respect of objections raised by the landlord on 5.11.1996. The petitioner had unsuccessfully sought to question this order in second revision before the Government of Goa, which was rightly not entertained as not tenable. This is how, the petitioner questions the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 20.4.2000 by the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Lotlikar for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent though duly served. Though the collector had also noticed that the landlord had filed an application on 7.8.1997 for withdrawal of the proceedings for eviction of mundkar, merely because specific orders were not passed by the Mamlatdar, he held that the application could not be said to have been withdrawn. Failure of the authorities to pass orders, is a different matter. When it was shown that the party did not want to proceed with 4 the remedy and prosecute the lis, the Collector should have seen that the Mamlatar had rightly rejected the objections raised. The objections were only that the petitioner had not been occupying the house for a period of 2 years, which was a ground, on which eviction of petitioner was sought. Once, the respondent withdrew his application made, on these grounds, the objections did not survive and, therefore, the learned Deputy Collector was in error in going by technicalities and holding that the Mamlatdar should decide the objections afresh. 5. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector on 20.4.2000, cannot be sustained, which is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. R. C. CHAVAN, J SMA