Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Joaquim Joseph Monteiro, challenged a judgment/order dated 25.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in Mundkar Revision No.12/2012. The Tribunal had partly allowed the revision preferred by the respondents (Camilo Ferrao and others) and remanded the matter to the learned Mamlatdar to examine the claim of the respondents afresh. The respondents had claimed that they were mundkars of the subject dwelling house on the basis that they were co-mundkars with one Margarida Vaz and were her legal heirs. The learned Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector, after considering the material produced, had concluded that the respondents did not produce any evidence to establish that they were co-mundkars or legal heirs of Margarida Vaz. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter without appreciating that the respondents had failed to discharge their burden of proof. The court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, and the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2(a), Shri Pundalik N. Raikar. The court observed that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they were co-mundkars or legal heirs of Margarida Vaz. The court held that the Tribunal's order of remand was unsustainable and set it aside, restoring the order of the Mamlatdar. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Goa Land Law - Mundkar Rights - Co-Mundkarship - Burden of Proof - The respondents claimed to be co-mundkars with one Margarida Vaz and her legal heirs, but failed to produce any evidence to establish such relationship or co-mundkarship. The Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector had correctly rejected their claim. The Tribunal erred in remanding the matter without considering the lack of evidence. Held that the order of remand was unsustainable and set aside. (Paras 5-8) B) Goa Land Law - Mundkar Rights - Inheritance - Legal Heirship - The respondents claimed to be legal heirs of Margarida Vaz, but no evidence was produced to prove heirship. The court noted that the burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish their status as mundkars or legal heirs. Held that the Tribunal's remand order was without basis. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration when the respondents failed to produce evidence to support their claim of being co-mundkars or legal heirs of the original mundkar.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 25.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of the Mamlatdar is restored. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mundkar rights
- co-mundkarship
- inheritance of mundkarship
- burden of proof
- remand order
- Goa Mundkar Act
- 1975
