The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the negative declaration in rendering the injunction order inapplicable and the procedural aspects of the case, including the appeal process and the importance of notice to the respondent.

1. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri Deepak Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the Respondents.

2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 29/01/2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No. 30/2017 pursuant to which the learned Tribunal dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners arising from the Judgment of the learned Deputy Collector, Mapusa dated 19/07/2017.

3. It was the contention of Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Administrative Tribunal had observed at paragraph 15 that “The Applicants have filed an application for negative declaration. Till the mundkar issue is finally decided, the suit dwelling house and the optional area provided under the Act which is subject matter of the said proceedings is required to be protected. If the injunction is not granted then great prejudice shall be caused to the Respondents.” The revision petition was dismissed as the application for negative declaration filed by the petitioner was pending. The negative declaration was granted to the petitioner vide the order dated 19/09/2016 and in view of the negative declaration the impugned order was required to be set aside. He adverted to the Section 5 of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975 and Rules, 1977 and submitted that the relief in certain case of threatened wrongfully dispossession was available to the mundkar in possession of his dwelling house, who apprehends that he may be dispossessed of the dwelling house by or on behalf of the bhatkar contrary to the provisions of this Act, may, in the prescribed manner, apply to the Mamlatdar for an order safeguarding his right to possession. Thereupon the Mamlatdar after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed, and on being satisfied that the applicant was entitled to continue in possession directed, by order, the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar to refrain from disturbing the possession of the Mundkar otherwise than in accordance with the law. Since, the respondent has been declared not to be a Mundkar, the injunction would no longer survive. The respondent had filed an appeal with an application for the condonation of delay and, therefore, in such circumstances there was no basis to continue the injunction order which was permitted by the learned Tribunal. The petition had therefore be allowed.

4. It was the contention of Shri Deepak Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the respondents that his father was registered as a mundkar in 1988 under Section 29(4) of the Act in respect of the suit structure. There was no challenge to the said order and which was followed by the purchase proceedings in the year 200. Pending such proceedings an application for negative declaration was moved by the petitioner under Section 8(A) of the Act while the respondents had invoked Section 5 and were secured by injunctory relief by the Mamlatdar on 18/08/2002. This order of the Mamlatdar was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Deputy Collector who allowed the appeal by the Judgment dated 19/07/2007. The petitioner had filed the revision giving rise to the impugned order. The order of negative declaration passed in favour of the petitioner was an ex-parte order and though the parties were directed to appear on 03/02/2015, the matter was taken on 02/02/2015. It was his contention that in view of the challenge to the order of negative declaration at the instance of the respondent, no question arose of setting aside the impugned order and that the respondent would suffer undue prejudice in case the order of negative declaration was accepted. The Writ Petition had therefore to be dismissed.

5. Shri Rohit De Sa, learned Advocate in reply submitted that the matter was taken before the Court on 03/02/2015 and when the respondents had not participated in the proceedings. Besides, the respondents were Mundkars in respect of an