Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Alfredo M. Rodrigues, Paul S. Rodrigues, and Fatima T. Rodrigues, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No.20/1992, which dismissed their revision, and the judgment dated 13.03.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, North Goa, Panaji, setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar declaring them as mundkars. The background of the case involves a dispute over a hut in Varca, Goa. The predecessor of respondent no.1 had filed Civil Suit No.30/1969 for eviction of the petitioners' predecessor, which was decreed. Another suit, Civil Suit No.116/1969, was filed against the petitioners' predecessor in respect of the same hut, which was also decreed in 1973, followed by execution proceedings in 1974. Despite these eviction decrees, the petitioners' predecessor filed an application on 26.10.1973 under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar Act, 1971, seeking declaration as a mundkar. The Mamlatdar declared him as a mundkar on 23.12.1980. The appeal against this declaration was dismissed, but the revision filed by the respondent was allowed by the Additional Collector on 13.03.1992, setting aside the Mamlatdar's order. The Administrative Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's decision, leading to the present writ petition. The main legal issue was whether the declaration of mundkar status was barred by res judicata in view of the prior civil court decrees for eviction. The petitioners argued that the civil suits and the mundkar proceedings involved different subject matters and reliefs, and therefore res judicata did not apply. The respondents contended that the issue of possession had been finally decided by the civil court and could not be re-agitated. The court analyzed the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar Act, 1971, and held that the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide mundkar status, and the civil court's decree for eviction does not operate as res judicata because the subject matter and relief in the two proceedings are distinct. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Administrative Tribunal, and restored the Mamlatdar's order declaring the petitioners as mundkars.
Headnote
A) Res Judicata - Mundkar Proceedings - Applicability of Res Judicata - Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar Act, 1971, Sections 2, 3, 8 - The principle of res judicata does not bar a mundkar application under the Mundkar Act, 1971, even if there were prior civil decrees for eviction, because the subject matter and relief in civil suits (eviction) are different from those in mundkar proceedings (declaration of mundkar status). The Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide mundkar status, and the civil court's decree does not operate as res judicata. (Paras 2-5, 8-10) B) Mundkar - Declaration - Jurisdiction of Mamlatdar - Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar Act, 1971, Sections 2, 3, 8 - The Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a mundkar, and such a declaration can be made even if the person has been evicted by a civil court, provided he continues in possession. The Act provides a special remedy for mundkars, and the civil court's findings on possession do not bind the Mamlatdar. (Paras 2-5, 8-10) C) Res Judicata - Civil Suit vs. Mundkar Proceedings - Distinct Subject Matter - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 11 - A civil suit for eviction and a mundkar application under the Mundkar Act, 1971, involve different causes of action and reliefs. The civil court's decree for eviction does not adjudicate the question of mundkar status, and therefore, the mundkar application is not barred by res judicata. (Paras 2-5, 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the declaration of the petitioners as mundkars under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar Act, 1971 is barred by res judicata in view of prior civil court decrees for eviction?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 of the Administrative Tribunal and the judgment dated 13.03.1992 of the Additional Collector are set aside. The order dated 23.12.1980 of the Mamlatdar declaring the petitioners as mundkars is restored.
Law Points
- Res judicata does not apply to mundkar proceedings under the Goa
- Daman and Diu Mundkar Act
- 1971
- as the subject matter and relief are distinct from civil suits for eviction
- a mundkar can seek declaration even after eviction decrees if he continues in possession
- the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide mundkar status.
