Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Thereza Cordo, challenged the orders of the Mamlatdar of Bardez, the Additional Collector, and the Administrative Tribunal under the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The dispute arose when one Venkatesh Vishwanath Lotlikar filed an application on 2nd May 1984 before the Mamlatdar seeking registration as a mundkar in respect of a house bearing Village Panchayat House No. 161 situated in property Survey No.49 sub-divisions 4 and 5 at Nerul, Bardez, Goa. He claimed to be occupying the house for over 35 years and named Agostino Henry Cordo as the landlord. Upon notice, Agostino filed a reply stating he was the owner of the house but the property belonged to Tolentino Cordo, who had died leaving behind his widow (the petitioner) and four children. Consequently, the petitioner was impleaded and contested the claim. During the proceedings, Venkatesh died on 29th December 1985 and his legal representatives were brought on record. After inquiry, the Mamlatdar by order dated 30th September 1993 directed registration of the respondent as a mundkar. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 30th November 1995. A further revision to the Administrative Tribunal was also dismissed on 30th January 2002. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The court noted that the authorities below had concurrently found that the respondent was a mundkar in possession of the house for over 35 years. The court held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. No such infirmity was found. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Mundkar Rights - Registration as Mundkar - Burden of Proof - Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - The respondent claimed mundkar status in a house owned by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title. The Mamlatdar, after inquiry, found the respondent to be a mundkar. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-5) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court. It will not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The court found no such infirmity in the orders of the Mamlatdar, Additional Collector, and Administrative Tribunal. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding the status of the respondent as a mundkar under the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 in a writ petition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mundkar status
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of writ jurisdiction
- Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act
- 1975
