1 WP112 & 470-2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NOS.112 & 470 OF 2011

Mr. Carlos Francisco Monteiro

r/o Escrivao Vaddo,

Opposite Viva Goa Restaurant

Candolim, Bardez Goa.

…

Petitioner

Versus

1.Josefina Baptista

(since deceased,

Through her legal representatives)

Alex Baptista ( since deceased

Through his legal representatives )

a) Mary Baptista

b) Domingos Sebastian Baptista

c) Ritina Baptista

d) Antonio Francis Baptista

e) Natvidade Baptista

f) Gregory Baptista,

g) Adelina Baptista

h) Jerry Baptista

i) Clara Baptista

2. Jose Maria Baptista

3. Mary Baptista

4. Rosy Baptista

All r/o Escirao Vaddo,

Candolim, Bardez Goa.

4a) Shri Caitano Baptista,

major, married,

4b) Ms. Rosie Baptista,

Major, w/o Caitano Baptista

4c) Shri Bonaventure Baptista

Major, married,

4d) Ms Elizabeth Baptista

Major, w/o Bonaventure Baptista

2 WP112 & 470-2011

All the respondents 4a to 4d,

residing at, 128K D'Mello compound

Somnath Lane Hill Road,

Bandra – West, Mumbai – 400050

4e) Shri Daniel Baptista,

major, married,

4f) Ms Carmen Baptista

major, w/o Daniel Baptista,

Both respondents residing at :

Cobra Vaddo,

Calangute, Bardez Goa.

…

Respondents

Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Kamat, Advocate for

the Respondents.

Coram:- M. S. SONAK, J

Date:- 22

nd January, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with

Ms. G. Kamat for the Respondents in both these petitions.

2.

Considering the connection between the two petitions, it is

only appropriate that both these matters to be disposed of by a common

judgment and order. In Writ Petition No.112 of 2011, the challenge is

to the demarcation order made by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez

purporting to demarcate the mundkarial area of the dwelling house

occupied by the Respondents. As against the Joint Mamlatdar's order

3 WP112 & 470-2011

dated 27

th October, 2009, the Petitioner instituted a revision before the

Deputy Collector, Mapusa. By the judgment and order dated 3^rd

November, 2010, the Deputy Collector dismissed the revision

application. The Petitioner then instituted yet another revision

application before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative

Tribunal vide its order dated 6

th December, 2010 declined to entertain

the revision application by observing that in terms of Section 24 of

Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction ) Act, 1975

( the said Act ) such revision would lie to the Government and not the

Tribunal. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.112 of 2011 has challenged

all these orders fundamentally on the ground that unless and until the

Respondents were declared as mundkars in respect of the dwelling

house, there was no question of entertaining any application on their

behalf seeking to purchase the dwelling house or to undertake any

demarcation of mundkarial area of the dwelling house.

3.

Possibly during the pendency of Writ Petition No.112 of

2011, the Joint Mamlatdar vide order dated 12^th July, 2011 proceeded

to allow the Respondents' application dated 20.10.1997 for purchase of

dwelling house. The Petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal

and revision provided under the said Act instituted Writ Petition

No.470 of 2011 to challenge the Joint Mamlatdar's order dated 12^th

July, 2011.

4 WP112 & 470-2011

4.

Mr. Thali, relying on the following decisions has contended

that no application for purchase of mundkarial dwelling house would be

maintainable until and unless the party making such an application has

applied for and obtained a declaration under Section 8A of the said Act

to the effect that he is indeed mundkar in respect of the dwelling house.

1. Shri Roqu