Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 818
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. SONAK, J
SHRI RAMCHANDRA PUNDALIK KAMAT – Appellant
Versus
SHRI BHANU VITHAL NAIK (since deceased) through LR'S – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 666/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar
For the Respondents: Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar
A mere registration as a Mundkar does not entitle a person to pursue purchase proceedings without a formal declaration.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioner sought to quash orders relating to Mundkar registration and purchase proceedings - Court held registration alone does not suffice for purchase rights - Decisions referenced: Sandesh Salgaonkar case and Gulabi Sangtu case. (Paras 6, 12, 17)
(B) Legal principles established include: Importance of having an official declaration to pursue any purchase proceedings as a Mundkar; registration is not conclusive proof of rights.
(C) Relief granted as the impugned orders were set aside for lack of due process; the purchasers must seek a declaration first.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for petitioner on mundkar rights (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's findings on registration vs. declaration (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. court's conclusion on legal principles (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. final decision and order of court (Para 17 , 18) |
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr Agni for petitioners and Mr J. J. Mulgaonkar for respondents 1(a) to 1(d).
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, parties had been put to notice that this matter would be finally disposed of.
3. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, has sought the following reliefs:-
A) For a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings in Mundkar Revision Application No. 21/14 before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa and upon examining the same for its legality and propriety quash and set aside the Order dated 16/11/2016 as being illegal, perverse and bad in law.
B) For a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings in Mundkar Revision Application No. 18/14 before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa and upon examining the same for its legality and propriety quash and set aside the Order dated 16/11/2016 as being illegal, perverse and bad in law.
C) For a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings in Case No. PON/MUND/APL/1/12 and Case No. PON/MUND/APL/3/ 2014 before the Deputy Collector and SDO, Ponda, Goa and upon examining the same for its legality and propriety quash and set aside the Order dated 25/06/2014 as being illegal, perverse and bad in law.
D) For a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings in Case No.JM/MUND/REG/MAR/504/78 before the Mamlatdar, Ponda, Goa and upon examining the same for its legality and propriety quash and set aside the Order dated 17/01/1985 as being illegal, perverse and bad in law.
E) For a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings in Case No.JM/MUND/PUR/MAR/2/2011 before the Mamlatdar, Ponda, Goa and upon examining the same for its legality and propriety quash and set aside the Order dated 18/02/2013 as being illegal, perverse and bad in law.
F) During the pendency of the hearing and final disposal of the present petition for stay of the operation, execution and implementation of the Order dated 17/01/1985 passed in Case No. JM/MUND/REG/MAR/504/78 and Order dated 18/02/2013 in Case No. JM/MUND/PUR/MAR/
2/2011.
G) For ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (F) above.
H) For ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (F) and (G) above.
I) Any other order as this honorable Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the Case.
4. However, Mr Agni, based on instructions, does not press for relief in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (D). However, he submits that relief in terms of prayer clauses (A), (C) and (E) is liable to be granted.
5. The respondents applied for and obtained registration under the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (said Act) vide Order dated 17.01.1985. This registration order was obtained qua Vaman Pundalik Kamat, the brother of the first petitioner. The petitioner sought leave to challenge Mamlatdar's Order dated 17.01.1985. Leave was granted, but the revision was dismissed on merits by judgment and Order dated 16.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioner, vide prayer clauses (B) and (D), sought relief
