Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

1. Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Parag Rao, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsels. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service.

3. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the two judgments passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 21/12/2015 in Mundkar Revision Application Nos. 2 of 2015 and 3 of 2015 respectively apart from the Judgment and order of the Mamlatdar dated 21/12/2012 and those of the Deputy Collector dated 04/11/2014 in Mundkarial Appeal Nos. 31 of 2013 and 4 of 2013. The petitioner as the original plaintiff had filed the Suit No. 461/2000/III (Old Special Civil Suit No. 64/1992/A) and Regular Civil Suit No. 466/2000/III (Old Special Civil Suit No. 153/1992/B) against one Armando Cardozo for the removal of the encroachments made in their property. The said Armando had taken a defence in the written statement that the encroachments claimed by the petitioner were part of their mundkarial dwelling house. The first suit was filed in February, 1992, but in view of the fact that there were further encroachments by the said Armando, the plaintiff was compelled to file the second suit and where the stand taken by Armando in the written statement was the same. The mundkarial issue was framed based on the pleadings in both the suits but the issue of mundkarship was referred in the subsequent Suit No. 153/1992/B. The said Armando had expired during the conclusion of the Trial before the Joint Mamlatdar and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as his legal representatives preferred two separate appeals before the Deputy Collector on the premise that although they were brought on record as the legal representatives, they were not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and were also not given a notice in the said proceedings. The respondents No. 3 was joined in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar by the said Armando being aware that his mundkarial structures were in the property belonging to the respondents No. 3.

4. The petitioner's case was that the property bearing Survey No. 76/1-A belonging to the petitioner being the southern half of the larger property bearing Survey No. 76/1 was partitioned around 30/06/1985. The original property bearing Survey No. 76/1 was divided by a katcha motorable road and the northern half belonged to the respondents No. 3 and the southern half belonged to the petitioner separated by a strip of road having a width of 6-8 mts. The Mamlatdar by the judgment and order dated 21/12/2012 declared the applicants i.e. the legal representatives of late Armando as mundkars of the respondents No. 3 and held that they had no right to claim mundkarial right in respect of the structures situated in the petitioner's property. The respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector challenging the said judgment and Order and the respondent No. 1 also independently challenged the same judgment and order before the Deputy Collector, while there was no challenge at the instance of the widow of the said Armando. The respondent No. 1 in her appeal challenging the judgment of the Mamlatdar had taken a plea that the proceedings had gone ahead without affording an opportunity to her of being heard and the said judgment on that ground alone could not be sustained. The Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer held in the appeal of the respondent No. 2 that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to add or delete any party when the issue was referred to the Civil Court and/or to frame additional issues. In the other appeal at the instance of the respondent No. 1 the Deputy Collector held that although she was brought on record as one of the legal representatives of the Armando, she was not allowed to participate i