Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5853
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
JOAQUIM DSOUZA (SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
KANTI GANESH TULASKAR AND 3 ORS – Respondent
WP 402 / 2024
The roznama entry signed by the Mamlatdar prevails over the case diary maintained by the clerk, emphasizing the importance of official records in administrative proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Goa Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Section 8(A) - Revision application allowed by Administrative Tribunal quashing Deputy Collector's order and remanding case to Joint Mamlatdar for fresh hearing - Tribunal relied on case diary over roznama entry signed by Mamlatdar, leading to claims of perverse findings. (Paras 4, 30, 50)
(B) Administrative Tribunal's reliance on case diary over roznama entry raises questions of procedural fairness and the weight of evidence in administrative proceedings. (Paras 14, 42)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of the suit property, sought a declaration that Respondents were not mundkars. The Deputy Collector dismissed the Respondents' appeal, which was later reversed by the Administrative Tribunal, leading to this petition.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's reliance on the case diary over the roznama entry was found to be perverse, as the roznama was duly signed and indicated the presence of the Mamlatdar.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in prioritizing the case diary over the roznama entry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the roznama entry, being an official record signed by the Mamlatdar, should prevail over the case diary maintained by the clerk, especially when the latter was blank.
Result: Impugned order quashed and set aside; Deputy Collector's order restored.
JUDGEMENT
1. Rule.
2. Rule is made returnable forth with.
3. Matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent.
4. The present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 26.03.2024. By this order, the learned Tribunal allowed the revision filed by the Respondent thereby challenging the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The learned Administrative Tribunal while allowing the revision with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and also the Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Mamlatdar.
5. Similarly, the learned Administrative Tribunal remanded the matter to the Joint Mamlatdar-IV, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa with directions to hear and decide the case afresh after giving full opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case by leading evidence oral as well as documentary and allowing cross examination of witnesses of the respective parties.
6. The Petitioners being the owner of the suit property filed an application before the Mamlatdar on 04.10.2001 under Section 8(A) of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 , seeking negative declaration praying therein that the declaration be granted that the Respondents are not Mundkars of the structure existing therein. The Respondents contested such proceedings by filing preliminary objections which were rejected by the Mamlatdar. Respondents then filed the appeal before the Deputy Collector who again dismissed the said appeal somewhere in June 2007.
7. Being aggrieved by that Respondents filed revision before the Administrative Tribunal which was registered as Mundkar Revision Application No. 32/A/2007. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 12.01.2015, dismissed the said revision and accordingly, fixed the matter before the Joint Mamlatdar on 03.02.2015 at 03.00 p.m. However, Respondents failed to appear. In view of the absence of the Respondents, on the subsequent date i.e. on 19.01.2016, the learned Mamlatdar passed an order against the Respondents to proceed ex-parte and allowed the Petitioner to proceed with the inquiry. Accordingly, the Mamlatdar allowed the application dated 04.10.2001 filed by the Petitioner, thereby declaring that the Respondents are not mundkars of the suit dwelling house. This order of the Mamlatdar was challenged by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by filing appeal before the Deputy Collector along with the application for condonation of delay. After condoning the delay such appeal was taken up on merits. However, on 24.06.2022, the Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 then filed revision before the learned Administrative Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order thereby remanding the matter to the Joint Mamlatdar and allowing the Respondents to contest the matter.
8. Mr. Bhobe appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the observations of the learned Administrative Tribunal are perverse as much more importance is given to the case diary maintained by the Joint Mamlatdar, than the record of the case which includes the roznama having signature of the Mamlatdar. He submits that the diary mentioned by the Mamlatdar and more specifically the date fixed for appearance i.e. 03.02.2015 was blank. Mr. Bhobe would submit that the diary was probably blank showing no date because the matter was not pending before the Joint Mamlatdar and it was remanded by the order of the Tribunal and therefore, possibly the entry was not affected in the case diary. However, he submits that the roznama of the case clearly shows that on 03.02.2015, the matter was called out before the Joint Mamlatdar stating that the case is remanded by the Administrative Tribunal and accordingly, the Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant remained absent. He also observed that no one appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
9. Mr. Bhobe would submit that the roznama of the said matter bears the s
