IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 809 OF 2009 SHRI PANDHARINATH D. CHODANKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI WAUSVEL J. S. MIRANDA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Judas Silva, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 8th October, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Silva, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji in Mundkar Revision Application No.1/2007 dismissing the revision application against the order dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Margao allowing the appeal against the order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar, Salcete allowing the application under Section 29(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 ('The Act' for short) 3. The petitioner along with Ahilyabai Chodankar filed an application under Section 29(4) of the Act for registration as mundkars. During the pendency of the said application, Ahilyabai expired and the application was pursued by the present petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he was adopted son of Ahilyabai Chodankar and her husband. The Mamlatdar allowed the application and ordered registration of the petitioner as mundkar. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and order was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Margao holding that the petitioner had not proved that he was adopted son of Ahilyabai and her husband. The Revisional Court concurred with the finding given by the Deputy Collector and consequently, dismissed the revision application. 4. Mr. Silva, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two Tribunals below while holding that the petitioner is not adopted son of Ahilyabai and her husband, have committed serious jurisdictional error and have not appreciated evidence led by the petitioner in proper perspective. According to Mr. Silva, the findings recorded by both the Tribunals below are patently unsustainable and contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Silva further submitted that the petitioner had proved that he was adopted by Ahilyabai and her husband in the year 1970 and, therefore, the Deputy Collector and Administrative Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Mamlatdar granting an application under Section 29(4) of the Act. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The findings recorded by both the Tribunals below that the petitioner has not proved that he was adopted son of Ahilyabai and her husband, cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. I do not find any error of law having been committed by both the Tribunals. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA