Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Premanand Naik, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The dispute concerned a cashew grove owned by the respondent, Fabrica De Mandur Church. The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Putu Bozo Naik, who allegedly leased the property from the Church in 1955. After Bozo's death in 1976, his wife Janki continued the tenancy until her death in 1984. The petitioner then claimed tenancy rights as their adopted son. The Primary Authority allowed his application, but the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority reversed that decision, disbelieving the claim of adoption and tenancy. The petitioner argued that the lower authorities erred in rejecting his evidence, including a rent receipt from 1963-1965 and a compromise after an auction in 1965. However, these documents were introduced for the first time in the writ petition. The Church contended that Bozo and Janki were only purchasing the produce, not tenants. The High Court held that under Article 227, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse. The court found no perversity in the impugned orders and noted that the new pleas raised by the petitioner could not be considered at this stage. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such perversity or error of law in the impugned orders. (Paras 2, 10-12) B) Agricultural Tenancy - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Tenancy Rights - Adoption - The petitioner claimed tenancy rights as adopted son of the deceased tenant. The Appellate and Revisional Authorities disbelieved the claim of adoption and tenancy, finding that the petitioner failed to produce credible evidence. The High Court upheld these findings, noting that the petitioner introduced new pleas (rent receipt and compromise) for the first time in the writ petition, which cannot be considered. (Paras 3-9, 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has established any grounds for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with concurrent findings of facts by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, finding no perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of interference
- agricultural tenancy
- adoption
- burden of proof
- new pleas in writ petition
