JUDGMENT - G.F. COUTO, J.:---Generosity, kindness of heart and charity not always sow the seeds of goodwill and gratitude and not so seldom as desired but more often than expected, brook ingratitude and bring up the base sentiments in a human being. These thoughts come to mind as here is an eloquent and unfortunate example of it, a case where a fine humanitarian Act, dictated perhaps by those noble teachings to give shelter to those who have no roof under which to live or to give food to those who are hungry, is answered by utmost ingratitude. The petitioners indeed having given shelter to respondent No. 1 and his family in their hour of need, find now themselves in a strange situation of being deprived, due to the acts of the latter, of their ancestral house. The old story of the camel and the kind hearted Arab, who is driven out of his tent, is thus repeated. The petitioners, therefore, approched this Court with this writ petition seeking redress to their grievance.

2. The petitioners hail from Raia Daguale, Goa, where there ancestral house is situate. They had been living in Bombay and had requested their distant relative and neighbour, Mr. Remiza Fernandes, to look after the house. Accordingly, Remiza used to periodically open and clean the said house with the help of a labourer. Somewhere in the year 1961, the mother of the first respondent approached Remiza with request to allow her to stay in the said house as her husband was ill and had been ordered to vacate the place where he was residing with his family. With the consent of the petitioners, Remiza permitted, purely on humanitarian ground, the mother of the first respondent to stay in the said house for a few months on the condition that she would vacate the same thereafter. As a result, the mother of the first respondent went to live in the house along with her family and this situation continued for a long period of time. Ultimately, somewhere in the year 1971, the petitioners requested respondent No. 1 to vacate the said house. However, the said respondent not only did not vacate the house but went to file an application before the Mamlatdar of of Salcete on 23rd February, 1972, praying that he be declared as a mundkar residing in the said property under section 10 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Protection from Eviction of Mundkars, Agricultural Labourers and Village Artisan Act, 1971 on the ground that he, along with his family, had been residing in the said dwelling house as mundkar and looking after the said property and the trees existing therein.

3. This application was resisted by the petitioners on several grounds and particularly on the ground that the suit property and the house belong to their ancestors and is meant for their family's stay only and secondly, that the suit house was not given to the first respondent for the purpose of looking after the same. On the contrary, the house had been entrusted to Mr. Remiza Fernandes for the purpose of being looked after by her. Remiza, out of pity, had given licence to the hold mother of respondent No. 1, in or about 1961, to stay there for a few months on the condition that she along with her family would vacate the house thereafter. This was done by Remiza exclusively on humanitarian grounds. Thirdly, respondent No. 1 was called upon to vacate the suit house but he and his family managed to stay there unauthorisedly and illegally.

4. By his judgment dated 16th February, 1978, the Mamlatdar of Salcete observed that though the application for declaration of mundkarship had been filed while the Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection from Eviction of Mundkars, Agricultural Labourers and Village Artisans) Act, 1971 was in force, the fact remains that the said Act had been repealed and replaced by the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, pending the disposal of the said application and, therefore, the definition of "mundkar" given in the 1975, Act was to be appkied. Accordingly, the learned Mamlatda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document