Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
C. V. BHADANG, J
Mr. Assis Piedade Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Luizinha Pereira – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 215 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri R.G. Ramani, Mr. Myron D'Souza
For the Respondents: Shri J. Godinho
The court affirmed that intervention in mundkar proceedings is not permitted based on potential impact on related civil suits; rights must be independently established.
Headnote:(A) Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Petitioners challenged rejection to intervene in mundkarial proceedings which they claimed threatened their rights as mundkars. Importance of intervention rights was highlighted in relation to property law matters. (Paras 2-21)
(B) Intervention Rights - The court emphasized that intervention in limited jurisdiction cases (mundkar proceedings) cannot be claimed based on potential impact on related civil suits. The necessity to individually establish rights in such cases was reaffirmed. (Paras 9, 11, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, minor owners adjacent to respondents' property, contested renovations by respondents alleging rights infringement and sought to intervene in mundkar proceedings. However, the intervention was rejected on the grounds of it being outside the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar.
Findings of Court:
The orders of the authorities regarding the mundkarial rights were upheld, stating that intervention was not warranted as it did not influence the jurisdiction of the civil suit regarding building byelaws issues.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' intervention in mundkarial proceedings could be permitted considering their rights would be harmed as per ongoing litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that intervention rights in mundkar proceedings are limited to direct parties; implications on separate civil suits cannot warrant inclusion of third parties.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenged rejection of intervention in mundkar proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. previous orders on mundkarial rights were upheld. (Para 4 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding intervention rights were presented. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. court clarified the standards for intervening in limited jurisdiction cases. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. the petition was ultimately dismissed with no merits. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT:
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. None for respondent No.3 though served.
Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 13.05.2015, by which the learned Joint Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners, seeking to intervene in the proceedings for declaration and registration as mundkar, filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, against respondent no. 3.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioners have filed a Regular Civil Suit No.76/2009/C against the respondent nos.1 and 2 for injunction, on the allegation that construction of their house carried out by respondent nos.1 and 2, is without keeping any set back and the same has violated the petitioner's right as to air, light, ventilation and privacy. The petitioners are having their ancestral house bearing no. 497 in property survey no. 37/11 at Mercuriam, Agassaim, Tiswadi, Goa, wherein they are residing as mundkars of respondent no. 3-Fabrica de Igreja de Corlim. To the south of the house of the petitioners, there is a mundkarial house of one Ms. Ana Queteria Pereira. Except the house of the petitioners and Ms. Ana Queteria Pereira, there are no other built structures in property bearing survey no. 37/11.
4. The learned Trial Court has granted temporary injunction, restraining the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from carrying out any construction activities in property bearing survey no. 37/11, which order has been confirmed in appeal, against which, Writ Petition No. 716/2012, is pending before this Court.
5. On 18.03.2013, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for declaration and registration as mundkar against the respondent no. 3 before the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi. A public notice was issued in daily Tarun Bharat sometime in November, 2014, when the petitioners for the first time came to know about the mundkarial proceedings.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that although, the bhatkar i.e. respondent no. 3 has filed written statement in Regular Civil Suit No. 76/2009/C, claiming that the structure of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was not in existence and no permission from the bhatkar to construct the same was obtained, they have chosen not to contest the mundkarial proceedings. In short, according to the petitioners, the house of respondent nos. 1 and 2, is by way of an extension in the plinth area, which was extended somewhere in the year 2009 and under the garb of the mundkarial proceedings they are seeking to regularise the same. According to the petitioners, the finding recorded in the mundkarial proceedings would affect their rights and the mundkarial proceedings are filed only to defeat the case of the petitioners in Regular Civil Suit No. 76/2009/C. In such circumstances, the petitioners sought intervention in the mundkarial proceedings, which was rejected by the Mamlatdar on 13.05.2015 and the same has been confirmed by the Deputy Director in appeal and in a revision under Section 25 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection for Eviction) Act, 1975, (the Act of 1975, for short), by the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners also sought permission to examine the petitioner no. 2 as a witness in the mundkarial proceedings, which application has been dismissed on 04.12.2015.
7. By a subsequent order dated 04.12.2015, the learned Joint Mamlatdar has allowed the application filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2, declaring them as mundkars of the suit dwelling house no
