1. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsels. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.

3. This petition takes exception to the order dated 25/02/2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal disposing the petitioner's appeal against the order overruling the petitioner's objection to the partition and the final order passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the partition of the property applied for by the respondents no.1 in respect of the Survey No.328/1 of Village Loliem. The petitioner had filed the appeal under the Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act for short hereinafter) bearing no.49/13 assailing the order dated 25/07/2013 and the other appeal no.3/2014 against the confirmation and final order both dated 4/12/2013 which the Appellate Court disposed off by the common impugned order. The respondent no.1 had filed an application dated 28/03/2011 before the Deputy Collector and SDO Canacona for partition of the portion of the property admeasuring 10,09,877 sq. mts. forming a part of the Survey No.328/1 purchased by them by three Deeds of Sale dated 19/06/2006 and 20/06/2006 and produced the Sale Deeds, the Record of Rights, Form I and XIV and the plan of the entire property surveyed under no.328/1 showing the portion of the property partitioned therefrom. The respondents no.1 had impleaded only its vendors but did not implead all the co-owners whose names were recorded in the occupants column including the name of the late father of the petitioner. The Deputy Collector and SDO had issued notices to all the co-holders of the survey No.328/1 in terms of the Rules under Section 61 of the Act and one such notice was issued to the late father of the petitioner who appeared and sought time to file objections in which he disputed the title of the respondents no.1 on the premise that the property purchased by the respondents no.1 exclusively belonged to him and others and that the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the respondents no.1 were the subject matter of challenge in a suit for declaration of title instituted against the respondents no.1 being the Regular Civil Suit No.24/2010 before the Court of the CJJD, Canacona.

4. The Deputy Collector and SDO overruled the objections of the petitioner and allowed the partition directing the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Quepem to partition the said area from the Survey No.328/1 in accordance with the sketch furnished by the respondents no.1. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Deputy Collector and SDO but on receipt of the notice issued to his late father, the petitioner appeared as his legal representative and filed his objection informing the Court about the death of his father. The Court had refused to consider the objections on the ground of non-production of material to establish that the property claimed by the respondents no.1 was the same as that claimed by the petitioner. He had challenged the order of the Deputy Collector before the Administrative Tribunal which granted an ex-parte stay on 3/10/2013. The respondents no.1 challenged the order in Writ Petition No.719/2013 on the ground that the interim relief of stay was granted without hearing him. This Court had partly allowed the petition vide its order dated 27/11/2013 on the limited point that the respondents no.1 were not heard before passing the order of stay and as such quashed and set aside the order dated 3/10/2013 directing the Administrative Tribunal to dispose off the Miscellaneous Application after hearing the respondents no.1 in accordance with law.

5. The Deputy Collector and SDO on hearing the parties confirmed the partition and closed the proceedings. The petitioner challenged the order dated 4/12/2013 confirming the partition and rejecting the