:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2008

1. Shri Sudesh M. Salelkar,

son of late Mahableshwar R. Salelkar,

major of age,

resident of Bomansai,

Sanguem Taluka,

Sanguem Goa.

2. Smt. Hema Satish Fal Dessai,

d/o late Mahableshwar R. Salelkar,

major of age,

and her husband,

3. Shri Satish Fal Dessai,

major of age,

both residents of Nagorcem,

Canacona Goa.

4. Shri Manik L. Kunde,

major of age,

and his wife,

5. Smt. Suganda M. Kunde,

wife of Shri Manik L. Kunde,

major of age,

both residents of Cuncolim Goa.

All above are represented by

Power of Attorney,

Shri Pradeep Prabhu Dessai,

resident of Galim,

Poinguinim, Canacona Goa.

….

Appellants

V e r s u s

Forest Department/

Government of Goa,

through Deputy Conservator of Forests,

South Goa Division,

Margao Goa.

….

Respondent

:2:

Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM : F. M. REIS, J

DATE : 16

^th SEPTEMBER, 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2.

The above appeal challenges the judgment passed

by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao,

in Civil Suit No. 4/2007 dated 19.11.2007 whereby the suit

filed by the respondent came to be decreed.

3.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the

respondent instituted a suit for declaration, correction of

survey records and permanent injunction with regard to the

piece of the land called “Carakol” which bears survey no.43/1.

It was the contention of the respondent that when the survey

of the property bearing survey no.43/1 was conducted, it

was not surveyed in the name of the Government. The

:3:

respondent then filed an application seeking correction of the

survey records. The appellants filed their written statement

disputing the claim put forward by the respondent. It was

the case of the appellants that there exists property known as

“ Parnagaly” or “Podnangally” at Maulinguem in the village of

Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka and that after the

liberation of Goa, the property was surveyed under No.43/1

admeasuring an area of 53,400 square metres. It is further

their case that the property is a paddy field and that the said

property was wrongly recorded as “Carukol” instead of

“Parnagaly”. It was further disputed that the property

surveyed under No.43/1 is the property known as “Carakol”.

It appears that in the proceedings which were initiated before

the survey authorities raising objections to the record of

rights, the Additional Collector by an order dated 08.10.1998

directed the inspector of land survey to examine the matter

and enter the portion of the property as claimed by the

respondent in terms of the said order. Accordingly, on

23.12.2005 the survey officer bifurcated the said property

into two portions, one bearing survey no.43/1 and other

bearing survey no.43/1(A). The property surveyed under

no.43/1(A) was entered in favour of the respondent herein

whereas the remaining portion surveyed under no.43/1 was

:4:

entered in the name of the appellants herein. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an

appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. But however, in

terms of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Land Revenue

Code, the respondent filed the said suit inter-alia seeking for

the reliefs referred to herein above.

4.

The learned Judge after framing the issues and

recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and decree

dated 19.11.2007 decreed the suit filed by the respondent.

The learned Judge inter-alia held that the boundaries as

shown in the land registration document and matriz

document are different and further found that the property

was shown as paddy field wher