Bombay High Court
Atmaram Anant Shetgaonkar Since ... vs Navso Bablo Salgaonkar Since Deceased ... on 12 February, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:208
2025:BHC-GOA:208 WP-584-2024
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 584 OF 2024
Atmaram Anant Shetgaonkar
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
a. Mr. Uday Atmaram Shetgaonkar,
Age 65
b. Mr. Anil Atmaram Shetgaonkar,
Age 62
c. Smt. Hemlata Atmaram Shetgaonkar,
Age 77,
R/o Morjim, Pernem, Goa. ...Petitioners
Versus
Mr. Navso Bablo Salgaonkar
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
a. Laximan Navso Salgaonkar
b. Mr. Bablo Navso Salgaonkar
Both R/o -H. No. 828, Varchawada,
Morjim, Pernem - Goa.
2. Mr. Vishram Dattaram Shetgaonkar
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
a. Mr. Ratnakar V. Shetgaonkar
b. Mr. Dattaram V. Shetgaonkar
Both resident of the Housing Board,
Mapusa, Bardez - Goa
3. Mr. Raghunath Vithal Shetgaonkar
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
a. Mr. Madhukar Raghunath Shetgaonkar
b. Mrs. Snehalata Madhukar Shetgaonkar
c. Mr. Prasannakumar alias Nitin
Madhukar Shetgaonkar
Page 1 of 7
12th February, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2025 22:16:23 :::
WP-584-2024
d. Mrs. Nisha Prasannakumar Shetgaonkar
e. Mr. Nilesh Madhukar Shetgaonkar
f. Mrs. Varsha Nilesh Shetgaonkar
All resident of Bhatiwado,
Morjim, Pernem-Goa.
4. Mr. Anant Vithal Shetgaonkar
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
a. Santosh Vijaysingh Shetgaonkar
R/o - H. No. 124, Naroji Wada,
Morjim, Pernem-Goa.
b. Pingal Santosh Shetgaonkar
R/o - H. No - 124, Naraoji Wada,
Morjim, Pernem-Goa. ...Respondents
Mr. Ankur Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vishnuprasad A. Lawande with Mr. Parimal Redkar and Ms.
Smita Gawas, Advocates for Respondents.
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India assails a Judgment dated 23.08.2023, passed by the
Administrative Tribunal of Goa, dismissing a Mundkar
Revision Application bearing No. 9/2021. The Mundkar
Revision was filed by the Petitioner to impugn a Judgment
dated 15.07.2019, passed by the Deputy Collector, Pernem in
an Appeal under the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkar(Protection
12th February, 2025
WP-584-2024
from Eviction Act, 1975) (Mundkar Act), whereby the Appeal
of the Petitioner against an original order allowing the
Respondent's application bearing No. JM/I/MUD/8/2000
under Section 8A of the Mundkar Act, for declaration of his
status as a Mundkar was allowed by the Mamlatdar of Pernem;
the order of declaration dated 17.07.2009, was passed in the
original proceeding after considering the evidence led by both
parties to this petition.
2. In the application for a declaration of his status as a
Mundkar, Respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b)/original Applicants
claimed status of Mundkar with respect to a House bearing No.
828, standing on the property under Survey No. 80/1 and 80/2,
situated at Warchawada, Morjim, Pernem, Goa. It was the
Applicant's case that the House bearing No. 828 partly existed
in land under Survey No. 80/2 of which the Applicants were
owners, while the other part of the House was situated on the
land under Survey No. 80/1, which land was owned by the
Petitioners/original opponents. The status of Mundkar was
claimed with respect to the said House, and in relation to the
portion occupied by the Applicants, situated in Survey No.
80/1.
3. In para 1 of the reply to the application under Section 8A
of the Mundkar Act, the defence taken by the Petitioners was
that the Applicants were not in occupation of the House claimed
12th February, 2025
WP-584-2024
by them on the appointed date and further at para 4 of the reply,
Petitioner's denied that the Applicants have carried out
reconstruction of the dwelling House to the extent that it fell
within the area falling in Survey No.80/1, with the consent of
the Village Panchayat.
4. Evidence was led by the parties during which a
Government Survey Plan depicting the area under Survey
No.80/2 and 80/1 was produced. The relevant Survey records
in Form I and XIV were also produced in which, the entry in
the Occupant's column of land under Survey 80/2 stood in the
name of the Applicant while in the Occupant's column of
Survey No.80/1 the name of the Petitioner's were entered and
in the other rights column of this record, the name of the
Applicant stood recorded. After considering the evidence led
by the parties, the Mamlatdar concluded that the Applicants had
proved their case for a declaration as their status as Mundkar
and accordingly declared them as Mundkar's of the dwelling
House bearing No. 828 situated on Survey No. 80/1 and 80/2
of village Morjim.
5. Apart from the oral evidence considered by the
Mamlatdar, the Mamlatdar has placed reliance on the
presumptive effect of an order dated 14.04.1982 of registration
of the Applicant's right as a Mundkar. Considering the effect of
the presumptions to be attached to an order of registration under
12th February, 2025
WP-584-2024
Section 29 of a Mundkar Act, coupled with the documentary
evidence produced by the Applicants to evidence their
residence with fixed habitation, such as Electricity Bills, House
Tax receipts and Water Bills, the Mamlatdar arrived at a
specific finding that the Applicants were in fact Mundkars of
the said House.
6. Whilst rendering the aforesaid findings, the Mamlatdar
also considered the evidence of a Surveyor examined by the
Petitioners on the location of, what the Petitioners considered
to be two Houses in existence and in occupation of the
Applicant, situated on Survey No. 80/1 and 80/2, and has
discarded this Surveyor's evidence as not believable; the
evidence of the Surveyor was found contrary to promulgated
Survey Records and the Survey Plan, in whose favour
presumptions under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code
were attached.
7. In Appeal, the Collector has reconsidered the evidence led
by the parties and has confirmed the aforementioned findings
of fact arrived at by the Mamlatdar.
8. In the Mundkar Revision Application before the
Administrative Tribunal, though strictly not called upon to
reappriciate the evidence led by the parties in its Revisional
jurisdiction, the Tribunal has in fact, on consideration of the
12th February, 2025
WP-584-2024
entire evidence specifically confirmed the concurrent findings
of facts arrived at by the original and the Appellate Courts.
9. Shri. Ankur Kumar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
has advanced the following submissions:
(a) That the Survey Plan itself was fraudulent and a
misrepresentation of the factual position at site and
did not depict the two separate Houses at the
location on Survey No. 80/1 and 80/2.
(b) That the findings of facts arrived at were perverse
and contrary to the records since, the Mamlatdar and
the Appellate Court have misconstrued the contents
of the NOC issued by the Panchayat on 09.05.1991,
in favour of the Applicant; he submits that the
licence/NOC was for extension of a House and a
compound wall in Survey No. 80/2 and not for the
House claimed, existing in Survey No. 80/1.
10. On going through the records, it is quite clear that three
Courts on considering the evidence, consistently and
concurrently have arrived at the factual findings that the
Applicants were in possession of House No. 828 situated on the
land under Survey No. 80/1 and 80/2, with fixed habitation
since the appointed date. These findings are based upon the
12th February, 2025
WP-584-2024
documentary evidence on record and are supported by the legal
presumptions under Section 29 of the Mundkar Act and Section
105 of the Land Revenue Code. There appears to be no cogent
evidence led by the Petitioners before the Mamlatdar to rebut
these presumptions. The findings of facts, can, therefore not be
upset.
11. As to the new grounds raised that the Survey Records are
fraudulent and do not reflect the correct position at site, there is
neither evidence led by the Petitioner before the Mamlatdar to
substantiate the allegation, nor are any objections raised to the
promulgated Survey Records/drafts/index of lands prior to such
promulgation. There is, therefore no evidence to support the
contention raised by the Petitioners for the first time before this
Court.
12. Consequently, the petition is dismissed since no
interference is called for in the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. All applications pending in the petition stand disposed of
as a consequence of rejection of this petition. No order as to
costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
12th February, 2025
