1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.

2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of the Administrative Tribunal, in Mundkar Revision Application No.8/2005.

4. The petitioner herein claims to be the mundkar of the respondents in respect of a house which the respondents constructed in the government land, which has been subsequently and specifically granted to the respondents, as Class II occupants, by virtue of order dated 25/01/1985 with certain conditions.

5. The petitioner herein filed an application against the respondents claiming that he was their mundkar. The said application is dated 31/12/1999 and was filed under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (Act, for short) and in which application the petitioner clearly stated that the said house was existing in government land and was existing for the last more than 50 years and the petitioner was occupying the same since last 25 years. The learned Mamlatdar by order dated 31/05/2001 rejected the objection taken by the respondents. The objection taken was that the application was not maintainable as the respondents were not the owners of the suit property, but only lessees and the owners of the property was the government. The Mamlatdar ruled that an inquiry was required to be held.

6. The matter was taken to the Deputy Collector who by order dated 31/01/2002 held that the Mamlatdar was knowing the fact that the land was of the Government and directed the Mamlatdar to dispose of the application. The Mamlatdar by his order dated 31/07/2002 based on the observations of the Deputy Collector dismissed the application. The matter again came before the Deputy Collector, who by his order dated 31/12/2004 dismissed the application.

7. The Administrative Tribunal by judgment dated 9/10/2009 referred to the definition of a “Mundkar” as given in Section 2(p) of the Act and so also to the definition of “Bhatkar” given in Section 2(f) of the Act and came to the conclusion that the land was owned by the government and this was mentioned by the petitioner himself. The learned Administrative Tribunal further rejected the petitioner's contention that once the land was granted by the government, the ownership stood transferred to the grantee and moreover the Act by virtue of Section 39 exempted lands owned or held by the Government from the applicability of the Act.

8. Section 2(p) of the Mundkar Act reads as follows:

“Section 2(p) “Mundkar” means a person who, with the consent of the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar lawfully resides with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house with or without obligation to render any services to the bhatkar and includes a member of his family.”

Section 2(f) of the Mundkar Act which defines Bhatkar reads as under:

““Bhatkar” means a person who own the land on which the mundkar has a dwelling house.”

Section 39 deals with the exemptions and provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to the land owned or held by Government, of any State in India, Government of India, a local authority or Provedoria da Assistencia publica.

9. The main submission of Ms. Shweta Naik, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, is that the application filed by the petitioner could not have been disposed of without holding an inquiry, as earlier ordered by the Mamlatdar by order dated 31/05/2001. To support the submission, Ms. Naik has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Shri Vasudev Pandurang Naik & Anr. V/s. Shri Krishna Vithoba Xete Tilve (since deceased, thorugh LR's) and Ors. (2006 (1) G.L.R. 585), wherein this Court observed that the Mamlatdar was obliged to hold an inquiry in terms of Rule 14, sub-rules (7), (8) & (9) of the Mundkars Rule and the question whether the applicants could be declared as Mundkars of the respondents ought to have been decided only after holding an i