JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---Rule, by consent returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner who claims to be co-owner of a larger property known as "Condade de Mayem" as also owner of specific portions of the property which was separated from the larger property has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus against respondents No. 1 to 3 to execute the warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994 and in pursuance thereto evict the respondent No. 4 from the residential house situated in the said property.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has a family Chapel which was administered earlier by her husband and thereafter by the petitioner. Certain properties were gifted to the Chapel and in respect thereof the petitioner was appointed as "cabeca de casal" in the inventory proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. Amongst the properties gifted to the Chapel and administered by the petitioner there exists a property known as "Borodo Molio" situated at Mayem which has been declared as evacuee property within the meaning of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (hereinafter called "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter called "the Rules"). In terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules the property stands vested with respondent No. 1 upon whom a duty is cast to maintain it in proper condition until the dispute regarding the restoration of the same is settled in accordance with law. Under section 7 of the Act the respondent No. 1 has been empowered to take possession of the evacuee property vested in him and is authorised to use the necessary force and requisition the aid of the police, if necessary. Upon such assistance being sought it is the mandate of the Act and the Rules that the Police Officials should be bound to render aid and assistance to respondent No. 1. It is further the case of the petitioner that although the property has been vested on respondent No. 1 since 1965 there have been serious lapses on his part in discharge of his duty. It was contended that there exists a residential house in the property attached to the Chapel of our Lady of Miracles which was meant for the residence of the Chaplain of the Chapel. It is stated that by use of force respondent No. 4 is illegally occupying the said residential house. The petitioner lodged several complaints to respondent No. 1 on the matter of this illegal occupation of the house by respondent No. 4. It was therefore the duty of respondent No. 1 to ensure that the same was not encroached or illegally occupied by trespassers like respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 however in pursuance of the petitioner's complaint issued a notice to the respondent No. 4 on 4th November, 1993, calling upon him to hand over possession of the residential house. This was followed by a final notice dated 4th March, 1994 which contained a demand to the respondent No. 4 for surrender of possession of the said house. Despite the receipt of the notice respondent No. 4 has refused to vacate the premises and surrender its possession to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994 whereby he and his family were ordered to be evicted forthwith from the residential house. The respondent No. 1 further ordered the use of such force as might be necessary for the purposes of eviction and taking the residential house into possession. Respondent No. 1 has addressed communication dated 10th June, 1994 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mapusa, enclosing a copy of the warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994. By the said letter respondent No. 1 requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police to depute Police force on 26th June, 1994 to assist the office of respondent No. 1 to execute the warrant of eviction. However, the warrant of eviction was not executed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that no Police force was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document