Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Sandesh Datta @ Dattaram Salgaonkar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 16/12/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim. The Deputy Collector had dismissed an appeal and maintained the order of the Mamlatdar of Bicholim in purchase proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (the Mundkar Act). The petitioner contended that the purchase proceedings could not be decided solely on the basis of registration under Section 29 of the Act, and that a declaration under Section 8A was a precondition. The respondents, legal representatives of the deceased Vithal Vasu Mayekar, opposed the petition. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the petitioner's counsel relying on the precedent in Shri Vassudev Pandurang Naik & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Vithoba Xete Tilve (deceased through LR's) [2006 (3) Bom CR 1]. The court found that the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar had erred by not considering the necessity of a Section 8A declaration. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Purchase Proceedings - Precondition of Section 8A Declaration - The issue was whether purchase proceedings could be decided based solely on registration under Section 29 of the Act. The court held that a declaration under Section 8A is a precondition for initiating purchase proceedings, and registration under Section 29 alone is insufficient. The Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar erred in dismissing the appeal and maintaining the order without considering this requirement. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether purchase proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 can be decided solely on the basis of registration under Section 29 of the Act, without a prior declaration under Section 8A.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16/12/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Section 8A declaration is a precondition for purchase proceedings under the Mundkar Act
- 1975
- Registration under Section 29 does not confer right to purchase without Section 8A declaration
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 143
WRIT PETITION NO.936 OF 2017
Shri A.D. Bhobe for the Petitioner, Ms. Darshana V. Kapdoskar for the Respondents
Shri Sandesh Datta @ Dattaram Salgaonkar
Shri Vithal Vasu Mayekar, since deceased through his LR's (a) Shri Satyavan Vithal Mayenkar, (b) Smt. Satyavan Mayenkar, (c) Shri Dayanand Vithal Mayenkar, (d) Smt. Savita Vithal Mayenkar, (e) Sanjay Mahadev Hadfadkar, (f) Smt. Sangeeta Vithal Mayekar, (g) Rama Raghuvir Dhargalkar, (h) Smt. Rukmini Vithal Mayenkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim in purchase proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 16/12/2015 passed by the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim, which dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Mamlatdar of Bicholim.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the purchase proceedings were decided solely on the basis of registration under Section 29 of the Mundkar Act, without a prior declaration under Section 8A, which is a precondition.
Previous Decisions
The Mamlatdar of Bicholim passed an order in purchase proceedings, which was appealed to the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal and maintained the Mamlatdar's order on 16/12/2015.
Issues
Whether purchase proceedings under the Mundkar Act can be decided solely on the basis of registration under Section 29 without a prior declaration under Section 8A.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that a declaration under Section 8A is a precondition for initiating purchase proceedings, and registration under Section 29 alone is insufficient. The respondents did not make any specific submissions recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A declaration under Section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 is a precondition for initiating purchase proceedings, and registration under Section 29 alone cannot be the basis for deciding such proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
the short point for determination in this petition was whether the purchase proceedings could be decided on the basis of the registration under Section 29 of the Mundkar Act, 1975
It was his contention that a declaration under Section 8A of the said Act was a precondition for initiating purchase proceedings
Procedural History
The Mamlatdar of Bicholim passed an order in purchase proceedings. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Collector and SDO, Bicholim, who dismissed the appeal and maintained the Mamlatdar's order on 16/12/2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975: Section 8A, Section 29
- Constitution of India: Article 227
