The definition of "mundkar" in the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, does not include agricultural labourers and village artisans.

ORDER:- The applicant prays that the judgment of this Court dated October 8, 1976, be reviewed.

2. The proceedings originated with a suit filed by the respondents against the applicant to evict him from a dwelling house. The applicant/defendant raised the contention that he was a village artisan and that his wife was an agricultural labourer. He sought protection under the Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection from Eviction of Mundkars, Agricultural Labourers and Village Artisans) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act". The Court directed the defendant to obtain a declaration from the Mamlatdar that the defendant was a village artisan and his wife was an agricultural labourer, within one year. As the defendant had failed to obtain the said declaration within the stipulated time the trial Court decided on 22-8-1974 to record the evidence and proceeded with the suit. The defendant made an application on 24-9-1974 to the Court to stay the suit until the decision of the Mamlatdar. That application was rejected by the order dated 24-9-1975, which was challenged in the revision application which culminated by the order of this Court, now sought to be reviewed.

3. The main point decided in the order of this Court dated October 8, 1976, is that the word "mundkar" does not include a village artisan or an agricultural labourer and that the definition of "mundkar" appearing in S. 2 (p) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the 1975 Act", though enlarged in its scope, does not include these two categories of people, namely village artisans and agricultural labourers.

4. It is argued by Shri F. Rebello, learned advocate for the petitioner, that even the "1975 Act" gives protection to the Agricultural Labourer and Village Artisan and therefore the provisions of S. 13 wherein it is provided that all proceedings for eviction of a person who has claimed to be a "mundkar" shall be stayed by the Civil Court until the Mamlatdar decides the issue of mundkarship, are attracted. It is urged before me by Shri Rebello that wherever the word "mundkar" occurs in the Act of 1975 the words "mundkar, agricultural labourer and village artisan" must be read. He invites my attention to the observations of the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, regarding the preamble and the title of the new Act. He also adverts my attention to the definition of "agricultural labourer" and "village artisan" given in Cls. (b) and (t) respectively, of S. 2 of the "1975 Act." Finally he relies on the second proviso to S. 15 (3) of that Act. I have perused all these observations and sections.

5. The contention of Shri Rebello that the Act of 1975 is applicable equally to mundkars and to agricultural labourers and village artisans is opposed by Shri Dhond, learned advocate for the respondents and Shri P. Mulgaonkar, who has been appointed Amicus Curiae in this case, as the decision on this point was of wider importance and was likely to affect a number of cases.

6. I have perused all the observations and the provisions of "the 1975 Act" relied upon by Shri Rebello and I find myself in disagreement with the view expressed by him. I agree with the view taken by Shri P. Mulgaonkar, learned Amicus Curiae, that with the enlargement of the scope of the definition of mundkar in S. 2 (p) of the 1975 Act, the protection to the agricultural labourer and village artisan is withdrawn.

7. The observations of the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Daman and Diu with regard to the preamble and title of the 1975 Act read as follows:-

"Preamble and title:- The year of the Bill has been changed to bring it in conformity with the year of passing. The expression "including agricultural labourers and village artisans" and "connected with the agricultural land" appearing in the preamble have been deleted, as the Bill as reported by the Committee provides for