JUDGMENT

Nutan D. Sardessai, J. - Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Adhoc District Judge, FTC-I, Panaji, pursuant to which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners to drop the respondent nos.6 to 8 from the proceedings and saddled the petitioners to pay costs to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the respondent nos.6 to 8.

3. Heard Shri M. B. D''Costa, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners who contended that the father of the first petitioner was a tenant of the respondent no.6 under a written agreement, the lease of which was renewed on 13.06.1968 for a period of six years w.e.f. 01.06.1968. However, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Act for short hereinafter, the Predecessor of the petitioner Sebastiao who was a tenant became a deemed owner w.e.f. 08.10.1976. The Government pursuant to a Notification dated 24.12.1976 transferred the assets of the respondent no.6 to the Government w.e.f. 01.01.1977. Since however, the property vested in Sebastiao on 08.10.1976 on account of the Fifth Amendment to the Act, the said property could not be a part of the assets of the respondent no.6 as on 01.01.1977 and therefore did not form a part of the property of the Government. He had filed a composite petition bearing no.1139/2016 claiming tenancy rights which was admitted on 10.02.2017. A Civil Suit was filed by the tenant against the trespassers who took a plea of the non-joinder of the Government as a necessary party and who were accordingly added as parties and the suit stood assigned to the Court of the District Judge.

4. Shri M. B. D''Costa, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the judgment dated 12.08.2013 in Tony Gracias & Ors vs Mr. Francis Crasto & Another. [Writ Petition No.352 of 2006] where a learned Single Judge of this Court (F. M. Reis, J.) had clearly held that when the suit was simplicitor for injunction and the plaintiff was seeking restoration of possession to its original condition, the said parties were not necessary parties to the proceedings. The same learned Single Judge (F. M. Reis, J), in his judgment had recorded that as the petitioners had not made any allegations nor any material was brought on record to show that there was any lis between the petitioner and the two parties, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order and in that view of the matter, had allowed the petition. The petitioners had filed the suit no.17/2009 against different parties for injunction. However, in view of the addition of the Government as a party one forum of appeal was lost to the petitioners. The petitioners had moved an application to delete the Government as a party which came to be dismissed by the impugned order even though no cause of action was claimed against them. He once again reiterated that once the tenant became a deemed owner in view of the Fifth Amendment on 08.10.1976 prior to the coming into force of the Notification w.e.f. 01.01.1977, the property vested in the petitioners'' predecessors and therefore the respondent nos.6 to 8 were not necessary parties. The reliefs claimed in this suit were similar to those claimed in the earlier suit bearing RCS no.133/2004. The petition had therefore to be allowed.

5. Shri P. A. Kholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 contended at the outset that to substantiate the plea of deemed ownership the petitioner had to first establish the plea of tenancy when his name was not even reflected as a tenant in the survey records. The lease on which the petitioners banked upon was only for six years with automatic termination on 01.10.1974 and therefore no question arose of any plea of deemed ownership. An application for impleadment of the Gover