JOAQUIM DSOUZA Vs. PIRU GANESH TULASKAR
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Piru Ganesh Tulaskar
Click here to view full judgement.
NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, J. -
(1.) Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri Deepak Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the Respondents.
(2.) This petition takes exception to the order dated 29/01/2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No. 30/2017 pursuant to which the learned Tribunal dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners arising from the Judgment of the learned Deputy Collector, Mapusa dated 19/07/2017.
(3.) It was the contention of Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Administrative Tribunal had observed at paragraph 15 that "The Applicants have filed an application for negative declaration. Till the mundkar issue is finally decided, the suit dwelling house and the optional area provided under the Act which is subject matter of the said proceedings is required to be protected. If the injunction is not granted then great prejudice shall be caused to the Respondents." The revision petition was dismissed as the application for negative declaration filed by the petitioner was pending. The negative declaration was granted to the petitioner vide the order dated 19/09/2016 and in view of the negative declaration the impugned order was required to be set aside. He adverted to the Section 5 of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975 and Rules, 1977 and submitted that the relief in certain case of threatened wrongfully dispossession was available to the mundkar in possession of his dwelling house, who apprehends that he may be dispossessed of the dwelling house by or on behalf of the bhatkar contrary to the provisions of this Act, may, in the prescribed manner, apply to the Mamlatdar for an order safeguarding his right to possession. Thereupon the Mamlatdar after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed, and on being satisfied that the applicant was entitled to continue in possession directed, by order, the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar to refrain from disturbing the possession of the Mundkar otherwise than in accordance with the law. Since, the respondent has been declared not to be a Mundkar, the injunction would no longer survive. The respondent had filed an appeal with an application for the condonation of delay and, therefore, in such circumstances there was no basis to continue the injunction order which was permitted by the learned Tribunal. The petition had therefore be allowed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.