ORDER:- This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prays to quash the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, the Collector and the Revenue Secretary.

2. For the disposal of this petition the only facts necessary to be mentioned are these : The petitioner took on lease land, plot No. 448, situate at Seraulim in auction by the Comunidade of Seraulim in 1961. Comunidade of Seraulim is the owner of that land. Previous to the petitioner taking the land on lease one Reniga Coutinho was cultivating that land on lease. That lady is the sister of respondent No. 6 herein. After the petitioner took the land on lease, he started cultivating it as lessee. Reniga Coutinho filed application before the Lt. Governor, Goa, Daman and Diu on 27-9-1963 to give the land in dispute to her stating that she was cultivating that land as lessee for number of years and that she was maintaining herself on that land. On that application it is said that the Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu passed orders that Reniga Coutinho be treated as lessee of the land in dispute. The petitioner herein then applied to the Administrator of Comunidades through application dated 16-3-1965 to hold that he was lawful tenant in respect of the land in dispute. That application was made over by the Administrator of Comunidades to the Mamlatdar at Salcete for disposal under the Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar numbered that petition as Tenancy Case No. 238 of 1966 and decided it on 20-8-1966. He held that he could not recognize the petitioner as lawful tenant because the Chief Minister had directed that the name of Reniga Coutinho be entered as tenant of the land. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order dated 20-8-1966 of the Mamlatdar to the Collector, Panjim was dismissed by that Collector. The petitioner preferred revision against the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Collector to the Revenue Secretary but that revision petition was also dismissed.

3. The petitioner now contends that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, the Collector and the Revenue Secretary are not in accordance with the law, that the orders said to have been passed by the Chief Minister could not have the effect of law and that the Mamlatdar should have declared the petitioner lawful tenant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Tenancy Act after proper enquiry.

4. The point for determination is whether there is any force in the contentions of the petitioner.

5. Before considering the contentions of the petitioner, I have to consider the preliminary objections raised by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 6. It should be noted that none of the respondents other than respondent No. 6 is contesting this petition. It is argued by the learned advocate for the 6th respondent that for the two following reasons the petition is fit to be dismissed:-

(1) The petitioner while filing this petition on 21-4-1969 in this Court incorrectly alleged that he was in possession of the land in dispute, even though he was dispossessed from the land in dispute on 13-2-1969.

(2) The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order which the Administrator of Comunidades of Salcete might have passed in obedience to the instructions given to him by the Director of Civil Administration through his letter dated 14-2-1964.

At the very outset it may be stated that I find no force in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the 6th respondent. It is alleged by the 6th respondent that possession of the land in dispute was delivered to him (the 6th respondent) on 13-2-1969 by preparing a panchnama. Copy of that panchnama is found in this file. It shows that on 13-2-1969 the petitioner was not present on the land in dispute when possession is said to have been delivered to the said respondent by the Circle Inspector in obedience to the orders of the Mamlatdar. In the panchnama dated 13-2-1969 it is mentioned that the petitioner could not be present on the land as he was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document