IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2008 SHRI ANANT J. DHARGALKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus DAMU RAULO POROB PADGAONKAR ALIAS ANANT RAULO POROB PADGAONKAR (SIN DEC) THROUGH HIS L.RS., ... Respondent Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advpcate for the petitioners. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the respondent no.1// Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 15th April, 2009 P.C. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.06.2008 in this Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order is in appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar dated 19.06.2000. 2. Essentially the possession of the petitioners was required to be seen. The petitioners had filed the proceedings before the Mamlatdar's Court claiming to be in possession as tenants. The possession of the petitioners has been considered. It has been the case of the petitioners that they were issued rent receipts by the "owner". The property was co-owned by three owners. The rent receipts were issued by one of the co-owners. The Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector have rightly considered that one of the co-owners could not have leased any part of the sub-divided property to any one. 3. The petitioners relied upon the decision of the civil Court in a suit for injunction filed by the co-owners themselves. It has been considered and held that the decision of the Civil court is not one of the documents to prove the title of ownership. 4. The Deputy Collector has further considered the survey records. The petitioners' names are not shown in the survey records. Therefore, it has been rightly considered that the possession is also of the respondents. 5. The petitioners relied upon the judgment of the civil court dated 30.09.1993 dismissing the suit. The judgment is only upon the ground that though the respondents herein were admittedly the owners of the suit property and their names did find mention in the records of rights being form I&XIV, yet prima facie the defendants seemed to be in possession. On that ground the suit of the respondents herein came to be dismissed. The authority to grant reliefs to the petitioners were the authorities whom the petitioners approached much later. They have extensively considered the petitioners' claim to title as well as possession. There are two concurrent findings of fact. The petition has no merit. Hence the petition is dismissed. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.