KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - The petitioner challenges the Orders passed by the Mamlatdar of Bardez, the Additional Collector and the Administrative Tribunal in the proceedings arising under the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the said Act).

2. One Venkatesh Vishwanath Lotlikar filed an application before and the Mamlatdar of Bardez at Mapusa on 2 May, 1984 requesting for registering himself as mundkar in respect of a house bearing Village Panchayat House No. 161 situated in the property bear. ing Survey No. 49 sub-divisions 4 and 5 situated at Nerul, Bardez, Goa and claiming that Agostino Henry Cordo alias Sunny Cordo of Alto Guirim to be the landlord and claiming . to be occupying the said house over a period of 35 years. On receipt of the application, Mamlatdar recorded verification of his claim on 4 May, 1984 in terms of the provisions of law comprised under the said Act and notice was issued to the said Agostino. On 31 May, 1984 on receipt of the said notice, Agostino filed his reply stating that he was the owner of the suit house and the same is situated in the property belonging to one Shri Tolentino Cordo who had expired leaving behind his widow the petitioner herein and four children. Consequent to the said disclosure in his reply, a notice was issued to the petitioner and on service of the notice the petitioner appeared before the Mamlatdar and contested the claim of the respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings said Venkatesh expired on 29 December, 1985 and on his death his legal representatives were brought on record. On conclusion, of the inquiry before the Mamlatdar, by order dated 30 September, 1993 the Mamlatdar directed the respondents to be registered as the mundkars of the petitioner in respect of the said house occupying structural area of 335 sq.m. along with W.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Addl. Collector which came to be dismissed by the Add!. Collector by its Order dated 29 August, 1996. The matter was carried in revision before the Administrative Tribunal. However, the same was also dismissed by its Order dated 1 April, 1999. Hence the present petition.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders on various grounds including the ground that the claim of the respondents under the said Act was allowed on the basis of inadmissible evidence, that the authorities failed to consider the fact that the original applicant Venkatesh had claimed the right of mundkarship vis-a-vis Agostino and not against the petitioner and therefore there was no occasion for the authorities to declare the applicant Venkatesh or his legal heirs to be the mundkars of the petitioner, that the concept of "dwelling house" as known to the said Act can extend to the area of 300 sq.m. and therefore the authorities could not have declared the respondent to be a mundkar of an area in excess thereof, that the authorities failed to consider the fact that the W.C. which is claimed to be a part of the dwelling house was situated beyond the distance of 5 metres from outer wall of the house in question, apart from the ground that the Addl. Collector while dismissing the appeal acting in a most superficial, perfunctory and arbitrary manner in not complying with the statutory obligation while dealing with the appeal against the order passed by the Mamlatdar.

4. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, the first point which arises for consideration is whether the lower Appellate Court has dealt with the appeal in the manner it was required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law under the said Act and whether the said aspect has been duly considered by the Revisional Court while disposing the revision application.

5. The contention ~n behalf of the petitioner is that the lower Appellate Court merely by one sentence that it has perused the entire evidence on record, and without analysing the said evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document