Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri Vassant Krishna Palyekar and Smt. Vanita V. Palyekar, filed a writ petition challenging the common judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Administrative Tribunal dismissing their Mundkar Revision Applications, and the order dated 27.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector of Bardez which set aside the order of the Joint Mamlatdar dated 30.09.2002 rejecting preliminary objections. The background of the case is that late Krishna Palyekar filed an application for registration as a mundkar before the Mamlatdar of Bardez. Upon notice, petitioner no.1 appeared and informed that Krishna Palyekar had expired in 1980. The Mamlatdar passed an order that the application stood abated for failure to bring the legal heirs of the deceased. Subsequently, the petitioners filed applications for declaration as mundkars under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The respondents raised preliminary objections, which were rejected by the Joint Mamlatdar. However, the Deputy Collector allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Joint Mamlatdar. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of the authorities below were based on evidence and did not warrant interference. The court noted that the petitioners failed to prove their residence and cultivation as required under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Mundkar Law - Declaration as Mundkar - Section 8A of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Burden of Proof - The petitioners sought declaration as mundkars in respect of a house. The authorities concurrently held that the petitioners failed to prove their residence and cultivation as required under the Act. The High Court upheld the findings, noting that the petitioners did not produce sufficient evidence to establish their claim. Held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration as mundkars under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, and whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mundkar declaration
- burden of proof
- abatement of proceedings
- concurrent findings
- scope of writ jurisdiction
