1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION No.18 of 2010 1) Shri Naryana Hari Naik (since deceased) through his legal heirs: 1 a) Smt. Vasanti Narayan Naik wife of late Narayan Hari Naik, resident of House No.252, Cardoz Waddo, Taleigao-Goa. 1b) Smt. Sushila Suhas Kundaikar, daughter of late Narayan Hari Naik, 1c) Shri Suhas K. Kundaikar, husband of (1b), Both residents of Gurudas Baba Niwas, near Fire Station, Varkhande, Ponda-Goa. 1 d) Smt. Vijayalaxmi Laxman Haldankar, daughter of late Narayan Hari Naik; 1 e) Shri Laxman M. Haldankar, husband of )1d); 2 Both residents of F-1 Neha Apartment, Durgawadi, Taleigao-Goa. 1 f) Shri Harish alias Rajiv Narayan Naik, son of late Shri Narayan Hari Naik; 1 g) Smt. Harsha RajivNaik, wife of (1f); Both residents of House No.252, Cardoz Waddo, Taleigao-Goa. 1 h) Smt. Smita Ramnath Naik, daughter of late Shri Narayan Hari Naik; 1i ) Shri Ramnath Naik; husband of (1h); both residents of flat no.1, Sapna Residency, Comba, near Railway Gate, Margao-Goa. …. Petitioners. V e r s u s 1 Shri Inacio Martins (since deceased) through his legal heirs: 1a) Shri Guru Shirodkar alias Guru Martins; 3 1b) Smt. Leela Shirodkar alias Vaidya Shirodkar; 1 c) Shri Ganesh Martins alias Ganesh Shirodkar; 1 d) Smt. Saku Martins; 1 e) Smt. Meenuka Martins alias Meenuka Shirodkar; 1 f) Shri Eshwant Silva (deceased) 1 g) Smt. Piru Martins alias Piru Shirodkar; 1 h) Shri Raymond Viegas (deceased); 1 i) Smt. Vatsal Martins alias Vatsal Shirodkar; 1 j) Shri Laxman Silva, All residents of Dona Paula, Tiswadi-Goa. 2) Nayantara Gangadhar Agrawal, C/o. M/s. Agrawal Minerals, (Goa), Station Road, Margao-Goa. 3) M/s. Agrawal Minerals (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. Having office at 4 Station Road, Margao-Goa. … Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate for respondent no.1(a) to 1(j). None for other respondents though served. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 29th March, 2011. O R D E R: By this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 29/4/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Panaji in Tenancy Revision Application no. TNC/DYCL/REV/25/2008. The revision application filed by the petitioners herein is preferred against the order dated 18/11/2008 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-III of Tiswadi Taluka. 2. Briefly, the facts relating to filing of the present petition are as under: In view of the order dated 7/4/21993 passed by the Apex Court, this Court ordered return of the plaint to 5 the legal heirs of Inacio Martins for being presented before the competent authority i.e the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi. On 11/12/1997, the legal heirs of late Inacio presented the plaint before the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi which was registered as Tenancy Case no.120/1997. 3. On 11/12/2008, the original respondent Narayan Hari Naik filed an application seeking to bring to the notice of the learned Mamaltdar that two of the original applicants who were shown as legal heirs of the original plaintiff were not brought on record and therefore the entire tenancy proceedings in Case No.120/1997 had abated. The respondents contested this position and submitted that the proceeding abated only qua the applicants who had expired. Learned Mamlatdar partly allowed the application by order dated 18/11/2008 and declared that the proceedings have abated qua the expired persons. The petitioners filed revision application 6 no.25/2008 before the Deputy Collector which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 29/4/2009, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in as much as the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision before the Administrative Tribunal under Section 50(2)of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (“The Act” for short). Learned counsel therefore urged that the petition be not entertained on the ground that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Administrative Tribunal has consistently taken the view that against the order passed by the Deputy Collector in revision under the Act further 7 revision to the Administrative Tribunal is not maintainable. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment dated 30/4/2007 delivered by the Administrative Tribunal,Panaji in Tenancy Revision application no.84 of 1998. Mr. Pangam further submitted that in the event this Court holds that the revision is maintainable, the petitioners are agreeable to go before the Administrative Tribunal to challenge the impugned judgment and order. 6. Section 50 of the said Act provides that the Collector may on his own motion or on an application made by an aggrieved person or on a reference made in this behalf by the Government at any time call for the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamaltdar and pass 8 such order thereon as he deems fit. The proviso provides that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such Mamaltdar shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties. Sub-rule 2 of Section 50 provides for an application for revision to the Administrative Tribunal against any order other than interim order of the Collector on the grounds stated therein. 7. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioners that the entire Tenancy Case no.120/1997 abated since two legal heirs of the original appellant were not brought on record. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector cannot be said to be interim order and therefore revision under Section 50(2) of the Act to the Administrative Tribunal against the impugned order would 9 be maintainable. 8. It is evident that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy by way of revision before the Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal against the impugned order if they so desire, subject to limitation. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-