Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rashid Salvador Sousa, filed a writ petition in April 2013 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petition challenged orders passed by the Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka between 1988 and 1996 declaring Respondent No.3, Victor Luis Monteiro, as a tenant of certain agricultural properties under Chapter IIA of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 read with the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967. The petitioner also challenged consequential orders permitting sale of some properties under Section 18K of the Tenancy Act and the resultant sale deeds executed in 1996 in favour of Respondent No.5, a company. Additionally, the petitioner sought a declaration that clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 6 of the Special Rules are ultra vires the Tenancy Act. The properties originally belonged to Joaquim Antonio and his brother Joaquim Xavier, both deceased. The petitioner claimed to be a descendant of Joaquim Antonio. The respondents, including the State of Goa, the Mamlatdar, the tenant, and the purchaser, opposed the petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches. The court noted that the orders challenged were from 1988, 1993, and 1996, while the petition was filed in 2013, a delay of about 17 years. The petitioner offered no explanation for this delay. The court held that the petition was grossly delayed and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Consequently, the court did not examine the merits of the challenge to the vires of Rule 6. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to orders passed between 1988 and 1996 filed in 2013 is grossly delayed without any explanation - Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone (Paras 1-10).
B) Agricultural Tenancy - Ultra Vires - Rule 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967 - Challenge to vires of Rule 6 - Held that since the petition is dismissed on delay, the challenge to the vires of the Rules is not considered on merits (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging tenancy declarations and sale deeds from 1988-1996 is maintainable after a delay of 17 years, and whether Rule 6 of the Special Rules is ultra vires the Tenancy Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Limitation for challenging administrative orders
- Ultra vires challenge to rules
- Agricultural tenancy rights
- Section 18K of Goa Tenancy Act
- Rule 6 of Special Rules
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 111
WRIT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2013
MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., S.B. SHUKRE, J.
M.B. da Costa, Senior Advocate with Karishma Betquecar, Sonia Chodankar for Petitioner; A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Pradesh Dangui for Respondent nos.1,2,2A; A. Agni for Respondents 3,3A; Ashwin Ramani for Respondent no.4; J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with V. Korgaonkar for Respondent no.5
State of Goa, Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka, Victor Luis Monteiro, Mrs. Gloria Monteiro, Francisco Alberto Lourenco D'Cunha, Sociedade Fomento Industrial Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging orders of Mamlatdar declaring tenancy and consequential sale deeds, and challenging vires of Rule 6 of Special Rules.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996, 11 September 1996, and other orders of Mamlatdar declaring Respondent no.3 as tenant; quashing of consequential orders permitting sale under Section 18K; quashing of sale deeds dated 21 May 1996 and 19 September 1996; and declaration that clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 6 of Special Rules are ultra vires.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be descendant of original owner and alleged that tenancy declarations and sales were illegal.
Previous Decisions
Mamlatdar passed orders in 1988, 1993, 1996 declaring tenancy and permitting sale; sale deeds executed in 1996.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging orders from 1988-1996 is maintainable after a delay of about 17 years?
Whether Rule 6 of the Special Rules is ultra vires the Tenancy Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the orders were illegal and that Rule 6 is ultra vires.
Respondents contended that the petition is grossly delayed and liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging administrative orders after a long and unexplained delay is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone, without examining the merits.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed in April 2013, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996 and 11 September 1996...
The petition is grossly delayed and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.
Procedural History
Petition filed in April 2013 before High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging orders of Mamlatdar from 1988, 1993, 1996 and sale deeds from 1996. Respondents opposed on delay. Judgment reserved on 7 March 2014 and pronounced on 17 April 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Chapter IIA, Section 18K
- Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967: Rule 6
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
