Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jose Antonio Damaciano Laticia Dias Mendes, filed a writ petition challenging three orders: (a) the Mamlatdar of Salcete's order dated 02.08.2001 in Case No. MUND/30/90, which held that the respondents were Mundkars of the suit house; (b) the Deputy Collector's order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the Mamlatdar's order as time-barred; and (c) the Administrative Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2012 dismissing the petitioner's Mundkar Revision Application No. 45/2004. The background involves a civil suit filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondents, who raised a defence of mundkarship. The civil court referred the issue of mundkarship to the Mamlatdar. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner's advocate, the Mamlatdar ruled against the petitioner. The petitioner appealed with a delay of 23 days, which the Deputy Collector refused to condone. The Administrative Tribunal initially set aside the Deputy Collector's order but later, after remand, dismissed the revision. The High Court held that the writ petition was without merit, as the Deputy Collector's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was correct, and no interference was warranted. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Appeal against Mamlatdar's order - Petitioner filed appeal 23 days late; Deputy Collector dismissed condonation application and appeal - Administrative Tribunal initially set aside Deputy Collector's order but later restored it - Held that the Deputy Collector's order dismissing appeal as time-barred was correct and no interference warranted (Paras 7-10).
B) Mundkar Rights - Reference by Civil Court - Mamlatdar's jurisdiction to determine mundkarship - Mamlatdar held respondents as Mundkars - Petitioner challenged order after delay - Held that the Mamlatdar's order was based on non-appearance of petitioner's advocate and no error shown (Paras 6, 11).
C) Administrative Tribunal - Revision - Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2012 dismissing petitioner's revision - Petitioner challenged all orders in writ petition - Held that the writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, and Administrative Tribunal are liable to be set aside on grounds of delay and lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Condonation of delay
- Mundkar rights
- Reference under Mundkars Act
- Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.526 OF 2012
Mr. Joaquim Godinho with Mr. Manoj Jalmi for Petitioner; Mr. Shivan Desai with Ms. Aishwarya Thorat for Respondents
Jose Antonio Damaciano Laticia Dias Mendes
Mahadeo Laxman Nagzarkar (deceased) through L.R.s
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, and Administrative Tribunal regarding determination of mundkarship.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 02.08.2001, 28.06.2002, and 04.07.2012.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's advocate failed to appear before Mamlatdar, leading to adverse order; appeal dismissed as time-barred; revision dismissed.
Previous Decisions
Mamlatdar order dated 02.08.2001 held respondents as Mundkars; Deputy Collector order dated 28.06.2002 dismissed appeal as time-barred; Administrative Tribunal order dated 04.07.2012 dismissed revision.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Collector's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was correct?
Whether the Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the revision is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the delay in filing appeal was only 23 days and should have been condoned.
Respondents supported the impugned orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Collector's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was correct and no interference is warranted. The Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the revision is also upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Mr. Godinho who appears with Mr. Manoj Jalmi for the Petitioner and Mr. Shivan Desai who appears with Ms. Aishwarya Thorat for the Respondents.
The Petitioner challenges the following orders by instituting this petition: a) Judgment and order allegedly dated 02.08.2001, passed by the Mamlatdar of Salcete in Case No. MUND/30/90; b) The Deputy Collector’s order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the appeal against the Mamlatdar’s order dated 02.08.2001; c) Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 04.07.2012, dismissing Petitioner’s Mundkar Revision Application No. 45/2004.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.141/86 (now RCS No.350/2000/C) for eviction. Civil court referred mundkarship issue to Mamlatdar. Mamlatdar held respondents as Mundkars on 02.08.2001. Petitioner appealed to Deputy Collector with 23 days delay; Deputy Collector dismissed appeal on 28.06.2002. Petitioner filed revision before Administrative Tribunal, which initially set aside Deputy Collector's order on 24.12.2010 but later dismissed revision on 04.07.2012. Petitioner then filed present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975:
