ANAND GHADI Vs. MARIA WOLFANGO D SILVA
LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-131
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: PANAJI)
Decided on
June 07,2011
ANAND GHADI
Appellant
VERSUS
MARIA WOLFANGO D'SILVA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NARENDER VS. PRADEEP KUMAR [REFERRED TO]RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VS. S. K. SARWAGI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE VS. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
ESSEN DEINKI VS. RAJIV KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. AMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAYMOND LTD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
HARDESH ORES P LTD VS. HEDE AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AKRAM ANSARI VS. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
K D SHARMA VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. CHHABI NATH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. JAGDISH NARAIN CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH BALWANTRAO ABHYANKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FB [REFERRED TO]
PRALHAD BANDUJI LODHI VS. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD VS. DEVRAJ CHADRABALI PAI [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR BABANI HALARNKAR VS. SHARAYU KAUTHANKAR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
A. P. Lavande, J. -
(1.)Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
(2.)By these three petitions, the petition-ers take exception to the judgment and or-der dated 19th November, 2009 passed in Mundkar Revision Application Nos. 11/ 2003, 12/2003 and 13/2003 respectively by the Administrative Tribunal by which the Tribu-nal has dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners and also disposed of the application for stay.
(3.)Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are as under :
The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 638 and 639/2010 and Shri Mariano Fernandes of whom the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 665/2010 are the legal repre-sentatives filed the applications before the Mamlatdar of Bicholim seeking declaration of mundkarship in respect of their houses and also sought permanent injunction re-straining the respondents from dispossess-ing the petitioners from the suit house. By orders dated 10th December, 1998 passed in all the three applications, the Mamlatdar was pleased to grant the temporary injunc-tion in favour of the petitioners. Against the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, respond-ent No. 1 in these petitions preferred revi-sion applications before the Deputy Collec-tor of Bicholim, who stayed the orders. The petitioners preferred the revision applications before the Revenue Minister, who by order dated 15th November, 1999 set aside the order of Deputy Collector with directions to Mamlatdar to dispose of the proceedings be-fore him on merits by 31st March, 2000. When the matter came up for hearing before the Mamlatdar, respondent No. 1 herein filed applications dated 7th December, 1999 seek-ing rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners under Rule 14(5)of the Mundkar Rules. The Mamlatdar after giving an oppor-tunity of being heard to the parties, by or-ders dated 14th February, 2000 allowed the applications of respondent No. 1 and dis-missed the main application for declaration and injunction and vacated the order of in-junction.
(2.)By these three petitions, the petition-ers take exception to the judgment and or-der dated 19th November, 2009 passed in Mundkar Revision Application Nos. 11/ 2003, 12/2003 and 13/2003 respectively by the Administrative Tribunal by which the Tribu-nal has dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners and also disposed of the application for stay.
(3.)Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are as under :
The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 638 and 639/2010 and Shri Mariano Fernandes of whom the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 665/2010 are the legal repre-sentatives filed the applications before the Mamlatdar of Bicholim seeking declaration of mundkarship in respect of their houses and also sought permanent injunction re-straining the respondents from dispossess-ing the petitioners from the suit house. By orders dated 10th December, 1998 passed in all the three applications, the Mamlatdar was pleased to grant the temporary injunc-tion in favour of the petitioners. Against the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, respond-ent No. 1 in these petitions preferred revi-sion applications before the Deputy Collec-tor of Bicholim, who stayed the orders. The petitioners preferred the revision applications before the Revenue Minister, who by order dated 15th November, 1999 set aside the order of Deputy Collector with directions to Mamlatdar to dispose of the proceedings be-fore him on merits by 31st March, 2000. When the matter came up for hearing before the Mamlatdar, respondent No. 1 herein filed applications dated 7th December, 1999 seek-ing rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners under Rule 14(5)of the Mundkar Rules. The Mamlatdar after giving an oppor-tunity of being heard to the parties, by or-ders dated 14th February, 2000 allowed the applications of respondent No. 1 and dis-missed the main application for declaration and injunction and vacated the order of in-junction.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.