An application for purchase of dwelling house cannot be made without obtaining a declaration as mundkar under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction ) Act, 1975.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms. G. Kamat for the Respondents in both these petitions.

2. Considering the connection between the two petitions, it is only appropriate that both these matters to be disposed of by a common judgment and order. In Writ Petition No.112 of 2011, the challenge is to the demarcation order made by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez purporting to demarcate the mundkarial area of the dwelling house occupied by the Respondents. As against the Joint Mamlatdar's order dated 27th October, 2009, the Petitioner instituted a revision before the Deputy Collector, Mapusa. By the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2010, the Deputy Collector dismissed the revision application. The Petitioner then instituted yet another revision application before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 6th December, 2010 declined to entertain the revision application by observing that in terms of Section 24 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction ) Act, 1975 ( the said Act ) such revision would lie to the Government and not the Tribunal. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.112 of 2011 has challenged all these orders fundamentally on the ground that unless and until the Respondents were declared as mundkars in respect of the dwelling house, there was no question of entertaining any application on their behalf seeking to purchase the dwelling house or to undertake any demarcation of mundkarial area of the dwelling house.

3. Possibly during the pendency of Writ Petition No.112 of 2011, the Joint Mamlatdar vide order dated 12th July, 2011 proceeded to allow the Respondents' application dated 20.10.1997 for purchase of dwelling house. The Petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal and revision provided under the said Act instituted Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 to challenge the Joint Mamlatdar's order dated 12th July, 2011.

4. Mr. Thali, relying on the following decisions has contended that no application for purchase of mundkarial dwelling house would be maintainable until and unless the party making such an application has applied for and obtained a declaration under Section 8A of the said Act to the effect that he is indeed mundkar in respect of the dwelling house.

1. Shri Roque Fernandes ( since deceased through LRs) & Ors. Vs M/s. Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., & Ors., (2010) Supp AllMR 349;

2. Keshav Bablo Gawde & Ors Vs Ramakant Khandeparkar & Ors., (1998) 3 AllMR 391;

3. Smt. Gulabi Sangtu Devidas and others Vs Smt. Prema Govinda Gauncar and others, (1994) 3 BCR 328;

4. Shri Vassudev Pandurang Naik & Anr. Vs Shri Krishna Vithoba Xete Tilve (deceased through Lrs.), (2006) 3 AllMR 481 and

5. Shri Sandesh Datta @ Dattaram Salgaonkar Vs Shri Vithal Vasu Mayekar [5].

5. Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Writ Petition No.112 of 2011 ought not to be entertained since there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal that no revision is maintainable before it in terms of Section 24 of the said Act. He submits that the Petitioner had a remedy before the Government and if the Petitioner has chosen not to avail of the same then there is no question of entertaining the present writ petition. Mr. Sardessai points out that in any case a simple order of demarcation does not in any manner prejudice the rights of the Petitioner or visit the Petitioner with any civil consequences. He therefore submits that the Writ Petition No.112 of 2011 ought to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Sardessai submits that the Writ Petition No.470 of 2011 ought to be dismissed because against the order of Joint Mamlatdar made on 12th July, 2011, the Petitioner had alternate and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the said Act by way of appeal and revision. He submits that