Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by the original defendants in a suit/application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966. The dispute involves agricultural land in Barbhat, Shiroda, Ponda, Goa. The petitioners, Tulsidas Bhiku Naik and others, and Caitano Silveira, challenged the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate regarding possession and title. The Mamlatdar had passed an order in favor of the respondents (Dumen Silveira and others) holding that they were in possession and had title to the land. The Additional District Magistrate dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar's Court under the Act, noting that Section 7 bars civil suits in respect of matters within the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction, and Section 8 provides for the Mamlatdar to decide questions of possession. The court held that the Mamlatdar's Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide possession and title in respect of agricultural lands. The court also considered the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227, stating that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless there is a perverse finding or error of law. The court found no such error in the present case. The court also addressed the issue of limitation for appeals under Section 15, noting that the period is 30 days and the Additional District Magistrate has power to condone delay. The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Goa Land Laws - Mamlatdar's Court Jurisdiction - Sections 7, 8, 9, 15 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 - The Mamlatdar's Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of possession and title in respect of agricultural lands, and the remedy of appeal under Section 15 is available against the Mamlatdar's order. The bar of civil suit under Section 7 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar's Court. (Paras 1-10)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 11-15)
C) Limitation - Appeal under Section 15 - The period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Act is 30 days from the date of the order, and the Additional District Magistrate has the power to condone delay in appropriate cases. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Mamlatdar's Court under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 has jurisdiction to decide the question of possession and title in respect of agricultural lands, and whether the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate. The court held that the Mamlatdar's Court had jurisdiction to decide possession and title, and that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse or erroneous in law, thus not warranting interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Mamlatdar's Court under Goa
- Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act
- 1966
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Maintainability of appeal under Section 15 of the Act
- Bar of Civil Suit under Section 7 of the Act
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 122
Writ Petition Nos. 422 of 2018 and 630 of 2018
Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar and Ms. Marie Rosette Pereira (for petitioners in WP 422/2018); Mr. S. Desai and Mr. J. Ramaiya (for respondent nos.1,2(a),(b) and 3 in both petitions); Mr. A. D. Bhobe (for respondent no.4 in WP 422/2018 and for petitioner in WP 630/2018)
Shri Tulsidas Bhiku Naik, Smt. Kusum Tulsidas Naik, Shri Bhiku Tulsidas Naik (in WP 422/2018); Shri Caitano Silveira (in WP 630/2018)
Smt. Dumen Silveira, Shri Inacio Silveira (since deceased through LRs), Mrs. Ivy Inacio Silveira, Shri Caitano Silveira (in WP 422/2018); Smt. Dumen Silveira, Shri Inacio Silveira (since deceased through LRs), Mrs. Ivy Inacio Silveira, Shri Tulsidas Bhiku Naik, Smt. Kusum Tulsidas Naik, Shri Bhiku Tulsidas Naik (in WP 630/2018)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging concurrent findings of Mamlatdar and Additional District Magistrate under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate and to restore possession of the agricultural land in their favor.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Mamlatdar's order holding that the respondents were in possession and had title to the land, and the dismissal of their appeals by the Additional District Magistrate.
Previous Decisions
The Mamlatdar passed an order in favor of the respondents on the question of possession and title. The Additional District Magistrate dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners, upholding the Mamlatdar's order.
Issues
Whether the Mamlatdar's Court under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 has jurisdiction to decide the question of possession and title in respect of agricultural lands.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the appeal under Section 15 of the Act was maintainable and whether the Additional District Magistrate had the power to condone delay.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Mamlatdar's Court had no jurisdiction to decide title and that the findings were perverse.
The respondents argued that the Mamlatdar's Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the Act and that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
The Mamlatdar's Court under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of possession and title in respect of agricultural lands. Concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and the appellate authority cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Judgment Excerpts
These two writ petitions are filed by the original defendants in a suit/application filed by the contesting respondents under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966.
The Mamlatdar's Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of possession and title in respect of agricultural lands.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and the Additional District Magistrate cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Procedural History
The respondents filed an application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 before the Mamlatdar, who passed an order in their favor. The petitioners filed appeals under Section 15 of the Act before the Additional District Magistrate, who dismissed the appeals. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966: Sections 7, 8, 9, 15
- Constitution of India: Article 227
