IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 823 OF 2010 MR. EGIDIO BRAGANZA ... Petitioner Versus MR. ROHIDAS SIMEPURUSHKAR (SINCE DEC.)THROUGH LR'S ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 to 7. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 7th September, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 7. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the original respondent no.1 is registered as a mundkar under Section 29 of the Mundkar Act. 3. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar as well as learned Deputy Collector and the Administrative Tribunal. The Courts below, after minutely examining the evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the deceased respondent no.1 was entitled to be registered as a mundkar under the provision of Section 29 of the Mundkar Act. 4. Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of the Courts below are perverse, as according to him, there was no positive evidence adduced by the respondents to the effect that they were occupying the house as on the appointed date. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the law is well settled that the registration of mundkar under the Mundkar Act only draws a presumption which can be rebutted in appropriate proceedings. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no perversity in the findings of the Courts below wherein the deceased respondent no.1 has been ordered to be registered as a mundkar. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary finding. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below whilst passing the impugned orders. However, Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right to contend that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court mere registration of mundkar only draws the presumption which can be rebutted in accordance with law. 6. Subject to the above, I find no merit in the above writ petition which stands summarily dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. NH