Sufficient cause for delay excusing late appeal can challenge decisions in eviction matters; jurisdictional errors in previous rulings warranted reinstatement of appeal.

M. S. SONAK, J.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Godinho who appears with Mr. Manoj Jalmi for the Petitioner and Mr. Shivan Desai who appears with Ms. Aishwarya Thorat for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner challenges the following orders by instituting this petition:

a) Judgment and order allegedly dated 02.08.2001, passed by the Mamlatdar of Salcete in Case No. MUND/30/90;

b) The Deputy Collector’s order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the appeal against the Mamlatdar’s order dated 02.08.2001;

c) Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 04.07.2012, dismissing Petitioner’s Mundkar Revision Application No. 45/2004, questioning the above two orders.

3. The record shows that the Petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No.141/86 (old) which is now registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 350/2000/C in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao, seeking the eviction of all the Respondents from the suit house and for restoration of the suit property.

4. In the said Civil Suit, the Respondents or their predecessors in title raised a defence that they were the Mundkars in respect of the suit house and, therefore, were entitled to the protection provided by the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (“said Act”).

5. Given the defence raised, an issue of mundkarship was cast and the same was referred to the Mamlatdar of Salcete vide Case No. MUND/30/90 for determining whether Respondents or their predecessors in title were indeed the Mundkars of the suit house.

6. Because of the non-appearance of the Advocate for the Petitioners on two dates, the Mamlatdar of Salcete, by an order which is dated as 02.08.2001, held against the Petitioners by answering the Civil Court’s reference in favour of the Respondents or their predecessors in title. In short, by order of 02.08.2001, the Mamlatdar held that the Respondents or their predecessors in title were the Mundkar in respect of the suit house.

7. The Petitioner appealed the Mamlatdar’s order dated 02.08.2001. As a matter of abundant caution, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay since it was felt that the appeal was instituted 23 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. By a composite order dated 28.06.2002, the Deputy Collector dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal.

8. The Petitioner then instituted Mundkar Revision Application No.45/2004 before the Administrative Tribunal. This was allowed by the Tribunal by order of 24.12.2010. The Deputy Collector’s order of 28.06.2002 was set aside and the Deputy Collector was directed to decide Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and only thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law.

9. The Respondents challenged the Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 before this Court vide Writ Petition No.182/2011. This petition was partially allowed by order of 13.07.2011. This Court, set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter in light of the observations made in this Court’s order.

10. Pursuant to the remand, the Tribunal has passed a fresh order dated 04.07.2012, this time, dismissing the Petitioner’s Mundkar Application No.45/2004 thereby, impliedly confirming the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector’s orders. Hence, this petition.

11. Mr. Godinho referred to the Roznama placed by the Petitioners on record and submitted that it was inconceivable that the Mamlatdar would make an order of 02.08.2001. He submitted that the order could have been made only after 30.08.2001, which was the date immediately before the order date. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner’s appeal before the Deputy Collector was within the prescribed period of limitation and could not have been dismissed simply because the Petitioner, on account of the incorrect date stated in the impugned order had, as a matter of abundant caution, sought for condonation of delay of 23 or 24 days in instituting the appeal.

12. Without prejudice, Mr. Godinho submitted that there