Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Akrur Raya Gaonkar and Yamini Akrur Gaonkar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21/09/2017 passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the judgment dated 31/03/2016 passed by the Deputy Collector. The dispute pertained to a declaration of mundkarship under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The petitioners claimed that they had constructed a house in the year 1979 and were entitled to be declared as mundkars. However, the appointed date under the Act is 20/08/1971. The Deputy Collector and the Administrative Tribunal concurrently held that the petitioners failed to prove that the house existed prior to the appointed date. The petitioners argued that the house was constructed in 1979, which is after the appointed date, and thus they could not claim mundkarship. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and that the High Court under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court did not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Mundkar Declaration - Appointed Date - Burden of Proof - The petitioners claimed mundkarship based on construction of a house in 1979, but the appointed date under the Act is 20/08/1971. The court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that the house existed prior to the appointed date, and the concurrent findings of fact by the Deputy Collector and Administrative Tribunal were not perverse. (Paras 4-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The High Court under Article 227 does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The court found no such error in the impugned orders. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners were entitled to be declared as mundkars under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, and whether the concurrent findings of the Deputy Collector and Administrative Tribunal were perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mundkar declaration
- burden of proof
- appointed date
- concurrent findings
- Article 227 jurisdiction
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (12) 91
Writ Petition No.923 of 2018
Shri G. Panandikar for petitioners, Shri Preetam Talaulikar for respondents
Shri Akrur Raya Gaonkar and Smt. Yamini Akrur Gaonkar
Smt. Chandravati Chandrakant Naik and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging orders of Deputy Collector and Administrative Tribunal regarding mundkar declaration.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 21/09/2017 of the Administrative Tribunal and the judgment dated 31/03/2016 of the Deputy Collector, and to be declared as mundkars.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed they constructed a house in 1979 and were entitled to mundkarship, but the authorities rejected their claim as the house was built after the appointed date of 20/08/1971.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Collector passed judgment on 31/03/2016 against petitioners; Administrative Tribunal affirmed on 21/09/2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be declared as mundkars under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Deputy Collector and Administrative Tribunal are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the house was constructed in 1979 and they are entitled to mundkarship.
Respondents contended that the house was constructed after the appointed date and thus petitioners cannot claim mundkarship.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The concurrent findings that the petitioners failed to prove the house existed before the appointed date are not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21/09/2017 passed by the Administrative Tribunal as also the judgment passed by the Deputy Collector dated 31/03/2016.
Heard Shri G. Panadikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended that the house was constructed by the petitioners in the year 1979 i.e. after the appointed date and therefore the claim of mundkarship...
Procedural History
The Deputy Collector passed judgment on 31/03/2016 against the petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 21/09/2017. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 on 23/11/2018.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975:
- Constitution of India: Article 227
