The court highlighted the significance of documentary evidence, the limitations of re-appreciating evidence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the need to establish the predicates of claiming to be a Mundkar under the Mundkar Act.

Heard Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks for a writ of certoriari or writ in the nature of certoriari to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2009 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal and the Orders dated 05.01.2006 and 16.03.2004 passed by the learned Deputy Collector and S.D. O. Panaji, and the learned Joint Mamlatdar, Panaji.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners are that the Petitioners reside in a House no. E-119 situated at Goltim, Navelim, surveyed under no. 10/26 of which the Respondents are the owners/Bhatkars thereof. It is also the case of the Petitioners that in view of the consent obtained from the Respondents and due to deemed consent, they have been residing in the suit house since the year 1973 and, as such, on account of deemed consent, as no suit for eviction has been filed against them on the ground that they were trespassers, they are entitled to occupy the house as Mundkars. The Respondents filed a Civil Suit no. 222/1992, inter alia, claiming that the Petitioners had trespassed in the house bearing no. E-119 and they have failed to vacate the same and, consequently, sought to evict the Petitioners from the suit house. The Petitioners filed their written statement, inter alia, claiming that they are the Mundkars of the suit house and as such an issue was referred to the learned Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, vide Order dated 22.10.1997, by the Civil Court in terms of the Mundkar Act. The learned Mamlatdar after holding a due inquiry, by an Order dated 16.03.2004, decided the issue in the negative. An Appeal was preferred in terms of the said Act to the learned Deputy Collector which also came to be dismissed on 05.01.2006. Thereafter, a revision was preferred by the Petitioners before the learned Administrative Tribunal which also came to be dismissed by the Order dated 13.05.2009. All the said Orders passed by the said authorities below are sought to be challenged in the present proceedings.

4. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has taken me through the impugned orders specifically the Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector and pointed out that despite of it being well settled that the First Appellate Court has to scrutinise every material produced before him whilst deciding the Appeal, the learned Deputy Collector has summarily rejected the claim of the Petitioners. The learned Counsel has pointed out that there were several grounds raised by the Petitioners to establish that the findings of the learned Mamlatdar on the issue framed by the Civil Court were erroneous and the learned Deputy Collector having failed to scrutinise the material or consider such submissions, has erroneously exercised jurisdiction bestowed on him to decide such Appeals. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there was material on record to establish that all the ingredients to claim that the Petitioners are Mundkars were established by the Petitioners which have not at all been considered by the authorities below. The learned Counsel thereafter has taken me through the Judgment of the learned Administrative Tribunal and pointed out that it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to find out that there was no application of mind on the part of the Deputy Collector whilst passing the impugned Order and exercised its jurisdiction by setting aside the Order of the First Appellate Court. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the Tribunal has not considered the contention of the Petitioners that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Deputy Collector, this itself has vitiated the Judgment of the Tribunal. Learned Counsel pointed out that as the First Appellate Court has not scrutinized the evidence on record it has vitiated the impugned Orders and, as such, the impugned Orders pas