JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---As the issue involved in the Letters Patent Appeal involves an important question of interpretation of section 7-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act"), apart from Counsel appearing in the present Letters Patent Appeal, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also allowed to address the Court on the issue of law.

2.The Companion Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 wherein the same issue arose, was also tagged alongwith this Letters Patent Appeal which has been heard. However, it seems that during the pendency of the proceedings, one of the respondents has expired. In the light of that, the said Letters Patent Appeal has to be heard separately after the Legal Representatives are brought on record. However, since the issue of law was common, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also heard while disposing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3.Brief facts may be necessary to be stated before formulating the issue that will arise for determination in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The appellants herein were the original applicants before the Mamlatdar of Mormugao. By their application they set out that they had purchased the suit property by joint Sale Deed dated 11th July, 1995. The sale had been registered. It was their contention that the name of one Usno Pandu Naik was wrongly appearing in the column of tenant. They desired to correct the survey record. They, therefore, prayed to declare the late Usno Pandu Naik alias Vishnu Pandu Naik, all the opponents/his Legal Representatives, as not tenants in respect of Survey No. 242 sub-divisions 1 and 3, prior to the coming into force of the Fifth Amendment to the Tenancy Act and even subsequently. The respondents No. 4 and 5 herein, who were the original opponents, filed a written statement. They raised various preliminary objections. The first was that the appellants herein had no locus standi as the Sale Deed was null and void, having been executed in violation of section 13-A of the Tenancy Act. Secondly, the Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the application, after the passing of the fifth amendment, the dispute according to the respondents No. 4 and 5 was of a civil nature. Thirdly, it was contended that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to grant reliefs to the applicants/appellants herein.

4.By order dated 5th April, 1994, the Mamlatdar formulated the objections raised by respondents No. 4 and 5 as he understood them. The Mamlatdar rejected the objection that the Court had no jurisdiction. The Mamlatdar further directed that in these circumstances, the matter be proceeded with further. An appeal came to be preferred against the said Order. By order dated 17th April, 1995, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the Mamlatdar. A revision came to be preferred against the said order. By judgment dated 7th July, 1997, the Administrative Tribunal held that a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (Smt. Sitabai Ramchandra Vaze v. Administrative Tribunal others)1, decided on 10th October, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 306/96, would not be attracted. The learned Tribunal relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Rajaram Totaram Patel v. Mahipat Mahadu Patel others)2, A.I.R. 1967 Bom. 408, decided under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act"). Some other judgments were referred to. Consequent thereto the Tribunal allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and directed the parties to appear before the Mamlatdar. This order came to be impugned by way of a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 407/97.

5.Before the learned Single Judge the correctness of the view taken in Smt. Sitabai Vaze case (supra), was in issue. It was contended that the said judgment was passed wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document