IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2010 SHRI. VAMAN USNO NAIK ... Petitioner Versus MRS. ARUNDHATI WALAVALKAR AND 18 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 5th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Deputy Collector in the case of TNC/REV/02/2010 by which the revision against the order dated 7th December, 2009 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-II, Vasco-da-Gama in the case No.JM-II/TNC/SANC/3/2006 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner who is the applicant before the Mamlatdar in an application under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 was aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar by which the Mamlatdar had given direction to file the written statement on the next date. This order came to be passed by the Mamlatdar on an application dated 20th August, 2008 filed by the applicant to pass necessary orders under Order VIII and Order XVII of C.P.C. 4. According to Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Mamlatdar could not have given the direction to the respondents in the case to file the written statement on an application filed by the applicant to pass an appropriate orders granting relief in favour of the applicant. According to the learned Counsel, both the orders are without jurisdiction in as much as no direction could have been given to the respondents to file the written statement on an application filed by the applicant/ petitioner to pass an appropriate order in view of the non-filing of the reply on behalf of the respondents before the Joint Mamlatdar. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kailas Versus Nanhku and others;(2005)4 SCC 480. 5. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Nadkarni submitted that the written statement has been already filed pursuant to order passed by the Mamlatdar which has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector and as such, no interference is warranted with both the orders. Mr. Nadkarni fairly conceded that the respondents will have no objection if appropriate costs are awarded in favour of the petitioner. 6. No doubt, the Mamlatdar ought not to have given direction to the respondents to file the written statement on an application filed by the applicant in the absence of any application having been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the fact remains that by the impugned orders, an opportunity has been given to the respondents to file their say and admittedly, the respondents have filed the written statement. Therefore, in my considered opinion, this is not a fit case in which interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in as much as no injustice would be caused to the petitioner, if the impugned orders are not set aside and the petitioner can be very well compensated by awarding appropriate costs. No doubt, the reliance placed by the Mamlatdar upon the provisions of Civil Procedure Code is misplaced and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Nanhku (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Pangam, does not advance the case of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that by the impugned orders, an opportunity of contesting the application filed by the applicant for declaration of tenancy has been given. Therefore, in my considered view, this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, considering that the respondents have been permitted to file the written statement after a considerable length of time, interest of justice would be served by awarding costs in favour of the applicant/ petitioner which are quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The respondents shall deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/ before the Mamlatdar within a period of four weeks. Liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the costs after they are deposited. 7. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA