that no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of the claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or amended. It would appear from prayer clause 48(h), which is reproduced above in paragraph 7, that insofar as the original defendant no.22 is concerned, the appellant is seeking a decree in the nature of permanent injunction, thereby restraining the original defendant no.22, Mamlatdar of Mutations from carrying out any mutation of names in the Form No.I and XIV of the properties, which are subject matters of dispute. This relief, in my view, would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code as reproduced above. Thus, so far as the question of the original defendant no.21, namely Calangute Police Station is concerned, the submission is that the act of breach of the provisions of Section 17-A of the Goa, Town and Country Planning Act is a cognizable offence under Section 17-B of the said Act. For this reason alone, the defendant no.21 may not be retained as a party defendant in the suit. The fact that the act, which is alleged, is an offence, would not perse afford cause of action to file the suit against the respondent no.21. No relief is claimed against the respondent no.21. This will not preclude the appellant from taking recourse to appropriate remedy in criminal law against the persons allegedly committing breach of Section
