Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent against the original petitioner, Raghuvir Harmalkar, alleging construction of a house structure in the suit property without consent. Raghuvir raised a plea of mundkarship under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, and the issue was referred to the Mamlatdar for determination. The Mamlatdar, after recording evidence, found that Raghuvir had constructed the suit house after the appointed date and did not establish mundkarship. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal, noting that no documents showed the existence of the house on the appointed date and that the structure was an illegal construction. The Administrative Tribunal, in revision, affirmed these findings and dismissed the application. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the Tribunal's order and remand the matter for fresh determination. They contended that the house was built with the permission of Ramnath, a co-owner, and that the authorities had wrongly decided against them. The respondent did not appear to contest. The High Court examined the records and found that the petitioner had not raised the plea of construction with co-owner's consent at any prior stage, and that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence showing the suit structure was erected after the appointed date. The Court held that no illegality, perversity, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction was demonstrated. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Mundkarship - Proof of Existence of Dwelling - The Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - The claim of mundkarship requires that the dwelling was in existence on the appointed date; here the evidence showed that the suit house was constructed after the appointed date and thus the claim failed - Held, concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below that the structure was an illegal construction and not a mundkar dwelling cannot be disturbed (Paras 6-7). B) Constitution of India - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order - Held, no ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal suffered from illegality, perversity or breach of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs; rule discharged
Law Points
- Mundkarship claim requires proof that the dwelling existed on the appointed date
- supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to cases of illegality
- perversity
- breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction
