A co-owner sought declarations that mundkar registration and purchase orders were void because she had not been joined in those proceedings. The Court held that the Mundkar Act excluded civil court jurisdiction over the challenge and dismissed the second appeal without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA31/15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 31 of 2015
SA31/15
2
| 2(g) | Miss. Gressilda Pereira Daughter of late Shri Agnelo Gonsaga Domingos Santana Pereira, Major of age, Employed, r/o. H.No. 211, Sinquetim, Navelim Taluka Salcete, Goa. .. Appellants |
|---|---|
| V/s | |
| 1. | Shri Aleixinho Fernandes (deceased) through L.Rs. |
| (a) | Shri Anthony I. Fernandes, son of late Shri Aleixinho Fernandes, Of major age, employed and his brother, |
| (b) | Shri Roque Michael Fernandes, Son of late Shri Aleixinho Fernandes Of major age, employed and his sister |
| (c) | Smt. Effie Fernandes Daughter of late Shri Aleixinho Fernandes, of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| (d) | Shri Darryl De Moore, of major age, employed, all residents H.No. 118, Novangully, Varca Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 2. | Smt. Sylvia Fernandes of major age, housewife, both residing at HouseNo. 118, Novangully, Varca, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 3. | Shri Caetano Menino Fernandes son of Shri Rosario Fernandes, of major age, Occupation plumber and his wife; |
| 4. | Smt. Maria Avelina alias Ivy Fernandes |
SA31/15
3
| of major age, housewife, both residents of House No. 130A, Novangully, Varca, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
|
|---|---|
| 5. | Smt. Alba Fernandes, daughter of late Shri Rosario Fernandes, of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 6. | Shri Menino Braz son of Shri Milagres Braz, of major age, Occupation seaman, both residents of House No.325, Reprovaddo, Varca, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 7. |
Smt. Natividade Fernandes daughter of late Shri Rosario Fernandes, of major age, housewife and her son; (since deceased represented by following legal representatives) (Amendment carried out as per order dated 12.02.2014) |
| 8. | Shri Cariton Lawrence son of Shri Jose Francisco Lawrence of major age, employed Service, and his sister, |
| 9. | Mrs. Felina Lawrence of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 10. | Shri Anthony Fernandes, of major age, seaman, both resident HouseNo. 387, Mobor, Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa. |
| 11. | Smt. Ramita Lawrence, of major age, housewife and her husband |
| 12. | Shri Elvis Fernandes of major age, employed |
SA31/15
4
| 13. | Miss Wendy Lawrence, daughter of Shri Jose Francisco Lawrence, of major age, Employed, All residents H.No. 301A, Reprovado, Varca Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
|---|---|
| 14. | Miss Sonia Lawrence, daughter of Shri Jose Francisco Lawrence, of major age, housework r/o. H.No. 301(A) Reprovado, Varca Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 15. | Smt. Zita D'Costa daughter of late Shri Louredes D'Costa, of major age, housewife r/o. H.No. 91, No Bairo Primeiro, Assolna Taluka Salcete Goa and her son; |
| 16. | Shri Nelson Almeida son of Shri Raul Almeida of major age, employed, and his wife; |
| 17. | Smt. Flaminia Almeida of major age, housewife, both r/o. H.No. 32, Desterro Vaddo, Behind Busy Bee School, Vasco da Gama, Goa. |
| 18. | Smt. Ruta Almeida daughter of late Shri Raul Almeida of major age, employed, and her husband; |
| 19. | Shri Arthur Colaco of major age, employed, both r/o. Helena Apts., 1st Floor, Near St. Andrew church, Vasco da gama, Goa. |
| 20. | Smt. Eva Almeida daughter of Shri Raul Almeida of major age, employed and her husband; |
| 21. | Shri Jose Sapeco |
SA31/15
5
| of major age, businessman, both rs/o. E-230, Sapeco Bldg., Near L.I.C. Office, Panaji Goa. |
|
|---|---|
| 22. | Shri Gabriel Almeida, son of late Shri Raul Almeida, of major age, landlord, r/o. H.No. 91, No Bairo Primeiro, Assolna Goa. |
| 23. | Shri Michael Almeida son of late Shri Raul Almeida of major age, employed and his wife; |
| 24. | Smt. Averl D'Silva of major age, employed both r/o. Nandanvan Apts. Kurtarkar Real Estate, 1st floor, Block A, Near Lourdes Chapel, St. Inez, Panaji Goa. |
| 25. | Smt. Eunata D'Costa daughter of late Shri Lourdes D'Costa of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 26. | Shri Joao Valadares of major age, businessman, both residents of House No. 92, “Ave Miram” Nagoa-Verna, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 27. | Smt. Irene (Olga) D'Costa daughter of late Shri Lourdes D'Costa of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 28. | Shri Raul Colaco of major age, employed, both residents of “Ave Miram” Nagoa-Verna, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 29. | Shri Edgar D'Costa son of late Shri Louredes D'Costa, |
SA31/15
6
| of major age, employed and his wife; | |
|---|---|
| 30. | Smt. Nina D'Costa of major age, housewife, both residing at 2239, Norfolk Drive Oakviile Ontario Canada L6H-6H4. |
| 31. | Smt. Violeta D'Costa. Daughter of late Shri Lourdes D'Costa of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 32. | Shri Olinda Ferrao of major age, retired, both residents of House No. 30, Nagvado, Betalbatim, Taluka Salcete Goa, |
| 33. | Smt. Flavia D'Costa daughter of late Shri Louredes D'Costa, of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 34. | Shri Crisologo Barreto, of major age, unemployed, both residing at House No. 455, Nagvado, Betalbatim, Taluka Salcete, Goa. |
| 35. | Smt. Assumta D'Costa daughter of late Shri Lourdes D'Costa of major age, housewife and her husband; |
| 36. | Shri Inacio Santano Santimano of major age, businessman, both residing at Santimano Bakery, Near Hanuman Temple, Fontainhas, Panaji Goa. |
| 37. | Shri Sebastiao D'Costa son of late Shri Louredes D'Costa of major age, and his wife; |
| 38. | Smt. Melky D'Costa |
SA31/15
7
of major age, housewife, both residing at House No. 110, Novangully, Varca, Salcete Goa. (Since deceased represented by following legal representatives) (Amendment carried out as per order dated 12.02.2014)
38 (a) Miss Valencia D'Costa Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, housework and her brother;
(b) Shri Selzar D' Costa Son of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa, Of major age, employed and his sister;
(c) Smt. Linette D'Costa Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa of major age, housewife and her husband;
(d) Shri Fredy Morais Of major age, employed, both r/o. H.No. Not known, Veroda, Cuncolim Taluka Salcete, Goa
(e) Smt. Zorina D'Costa daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, housewife and her husband
(f) Shri Newton Dias Son of late Shri Antonio Dias, Of major age, employed, both r/o. Orlim, Salcete Goa.
(g) Miss Mockfil D'Costa daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, employed and her sister
(h) Miss Brezhnil D'Costa Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, employed and her sister
(i) Miss Shelma D'Costa,
SA31/15
8
Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa, Of major age employed and her sister;
(j) Miss Sharnifa D'Costa, Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa, of major age, unemployed and her brother;
(k) Shri Menino D'Costa Son of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa, Of major age, employed and his brother;
(l) Shri Yleason D'Costa Son of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, employed and his brother.
(m) Shri Bhelruck D'Costa, Son of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa of major age, employed and his sister,
(n) Miss Zurieka D'Costa, Daughter of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa, Of major age employed and her brother;
(o) Shri Branicks D'Costa, Son of Shri Sebastiao D'Costa Of major age, employed, All residents of House No- 110, Novangully, Varca, Taluka Salcete, Goa. .. Respondents
Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. C. A. Ferreira and Ms. Rechelle Almeida, Advocates for the respondents.
SA31/15
9
CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
Date : 28th July, 2015
JUDGMENT :
By this appeal, the appellants- original plaintiffs are challenging the judgment and order dated 20/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003, thereby confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.31/01/III by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao.
(ii) Whether Section 31(2) of the said Act would bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit, seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar (or other authorities under the said Act) be declared as null and void ?
SA31/15
10
That property better known as 'Novangully Dando' situated at village Varca, Taluka Salcete, District South Goa surveyed under Survey No.275/8 and more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, is the subject matter of dispute. The appellants filed the suit before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division with the allegation that the suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiff no.1 by name Lourdes D'Costa, who expired on 17/06/1965. Smt. Maria Angelica Costa, the mother of the appellant no.1, expired on 11/09/1996. Lourdes D'Costa and Maria Angelica Costa left behind two sons namely Sebastio D'Costa (respondent no.37) and Edgar D'Costa (respondent no.29) and seven daughters, including the appellant no.1. According to the appellant no.1, after the death of her parents, she became the co-sharer of the suit property. The appellant no.1 was married to appellant no.2 (since deceased) Agnelo Domingos under the
SA31/15
11
regime of common enjoyment of the properties. The suit was filed by the appellant no.1 along with her husband appellant no.2 (since deceased). It was the material case that on 05/01/2001, when the appellant no.1 went to her parental house, which is situated on the western side of the suit property, the respondent no.1 started abusing her claiming that the appellant no.1 or any of her family members have no right to pass through the suit property, since they have purchased the suit property in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. Further according to the appellants, on enquiry, it was found that the contesting respondent no.1 had moved an application for registration as mundkars in respect of the dwelling house. These proceedings were decided on 24/10/1981. Subsequently, an order for purchase of the mundkarial house was also passed on 18/08/1999. In both these proceedings, the appellant no.1 or her sisters were not made parties and the proceedings were only filed against the respondent no.37 Sebastio D'Costa and respondent no.29 Edgar D'Costa.
SA31/15
12
parties. In short, according to the appellants, the orders passed in the proceedings by the Mamlatdar were ab-initio-void . The suit came to be filed with the following prayers :
(c) that the sanad issued in Case No.JM/I/MUND/ Purchase /29/92 on 18/08/1991 by the Deputy Collector, Margao, be declared null and void; (d) such other orders as this Hon'be Court deems fit and proper, be passed. ”
SA31/15
13
property with the boundaries as described in para 3 of the plaint ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the father of the plaintiff no.1 allowed the mother of the defendant no.1 to stay in the suit house as a care-taker in order to take care of the said house ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is not a mundkar in the suit house and that the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration that the defendant no. 1 is not the mundkar of the suit house ?
4. Whether the defendants prove that this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the issue raised by the plaintiffs is whether the defendant no.1 is a mundkar or not ? ”
5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation as the declaration sought is in respect of Orders dated 24/10/1981 and 18/08/1991 ? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector have not been joined as parties ?
7. Whether the defendants prove that the case for declaration of mundkarship was filed against the landlord or against the persons purporting to act as landlords ?
8. What relief ? What Order ?
SA31/15
14
came to be examined. Parties produced certain documents. The learned Trial Court held all issues as not proved and dismissed the suit, which was challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge framed the following points for determination:
2. Whether the plaintiffs proved that Smt. Conceicao Divina Fernandes or the defendant no.1 were not the mundkars of the suit property and whether the order passed in the mundkar case by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete is null and void ?
3. Whether the defendants proved that the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
4. Whether the Judgment and Decree is illegal and therefore warrants interference in appeal?”
SA31/15
15
B) Whether the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to examine the documents at exhibit 70 and 71, which are the records of the cases wherein the above orders of Mundkarship were obtained and which clearly establish that the Appellants were neither made parties nor served notices in the said cases ?
C) The finding of the learned First Appellate Court at para 26 that the plaintiff being a married daughter of the original bhatkar was not required to be made a party to the Mundkar case as she was a married daughter ?”
D) Whether the finding of the First Appellate
SA31/15
16
Court that the Appellant was very much aware of the Mundkar proceedings and therefore the suit is barred by limitation is perverse for want of any reason for arriving at such a finding ?
E) Whether having regard to the definition of Bhatkar under section 2(f) of the Goa Mundkar (Protection from eviction) Act, 1975 and admitted position that the plaintiffs are co-owners as the coheirs of the original owners i.e. Late Lourdes D'Costa and Maria Angelica D'Costa in respect of which the order of Mundkar registration dated 24/10/1981 and the sanad for purchase of dwelling house dated 18/08/1991 pursuant to the same registration without joining the Appellants/ Plaintiffs as party respondents thereto are legally valid and not null and void ? F) Whether the courts below committed illegality in declining to grant declaration that the Mundkar registration dated 24/10/1981 obtained by Defendant No.1 and the purchase of dwelling house vide sanad dated 18/08/1991 are null and void, despite the admitted position that the plaintiffs as co-heirs of the original owners of the property fall within the ambit of Section 2(f)/ of the Goa Mundkar (Protection from eviction) Act, 1975 and were admittedly not joined as parties in the said Mundkar proceedings ?
SA31/15
17
G) Whether the order of Mundkar registration dated 24/10/1981 and purchase dated 18/08/1991 are valid in law and binding on the Plaintiffs/Appellants as the admitted owners of the property and Bhatkars within the meaning of section 2(f) of Goa Mundkar (Protection from eviction) Act, 1975 ?
H) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code on account of failure to frame the points for determination as regards legal validity of the Mundkar orders in respect of which declaration of nullity was sought in the suit ?
I) Whether the finding given by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs had not proved that the owners of suit property is perverse in view of there being no dispute as regards the status of the Plaintiffs as co-owners of the suit property ? J) Whether the Appellate Court committed patent error of law in holding that the Plaintiff No.1 being the married daughter of original owner (Bhatkar) does not acquire any right in the suit property ? K) Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that the Defendants were aware of the Mundkar orders under challenge in the suit and the suit is therefore barred by law of limitation is bad and perverse there being no material at all to attribute such knowledge to the Appellant ?
It is submitted by Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned
SA31/15
18
Counsel for the appellants that the appellant no.1, as a married daughter, would be a co-sharer in the property of her deceased parents. It is submitted that DW1 has admitted that the property was belonging to Lourdes D'Costa. Lourdes D'Costa had left behind two sons and seven daughters, including the appellant no.1. It is submitted that admittedly, the appellant no.1 and her other sisters were not made parties in the proceedings for registration as well as proceedings for purchase of the Mundkarial property. It is submitted that these orders passed in the proceedings would be ab-initio , null and void, being against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the reasoning by the Appellate Court that being a married daughter, the appellant no.1 had no right in the property of her parents, is clearly illegal. It is submitted that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit of the present nature, when the basic principles of natural justice have been violated. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai, etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 and the judgment in the case of Ram Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. And other Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1994 Supplement (2) 228, in order to submit that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in such a case, cannot be said to be barred.
SA31/15
19
SA31/15
20
SA31/15
21
Act. The said Act is enacted to provide for better protection to mundkars against eviction from their dwelling houses and for granting them the right to purchase such houses with the site, on which such houses have been built, at a reasonable price. Under section 2(f), a 'Bhatkar' means a person, who owns a land on which the mundkar has a dwelling house. Section 8A contemplates a declaration of a right of mundkar and it reads as under :
“8A. Declaration of right.— (1) If any person is entitled to any right under this Act he may move the Mamlatdar by an application for a declaration for such a right.
(2) On receipt of such an application, the Mamlatdar may after holding such enquiry as may be prescribed, pass such order as he considers fit.”
SA31/15
22
Tribunal, as the case may be shall subject to revision if any, under section 25 of this Act, be final.
Explanation.— (1) For the purpose of this section “interim order” shall not include injunction order and such orders shall be subject to appeal and revision.”
“ 31. Protection of action taken under the Act and bar of jurisdiction of Courts. — (1) …......
(2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined, by the Mamlatdar or the Collector or the Government or the Administrative Tribunal and no order passed by such authority under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.
32. Suits involving issues required to be decided
under this Act .— (1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or the Collector under this Act, the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to the Mamlatdar or the Collector, as the case may be, for determination.
(2) On receipt of such reference from the Civil Court, the Mamlatdar or the Collector shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions
SA31/15
23
of this Act and shall communicate his decisions to the Civil Court and such Court shall thereupon decide the suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereof. ”
SA31/15
24
question or to determine any matter, which is by or under the said Act, required to be settled, decided, dealt with or to be determined by the Mamlatdar or the Collector or the Government or the Administrative Tribunal and no order passed by such authorities under the said Act, shall be questioned in a Civil or Criminal Court.
SA31/15
25
down the following principles relating to exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court :
“(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular
SA31/15
26
Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.
(4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit, does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case, the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply : Case law discussed.”
It can, thus, be seen that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred unless the conditions as set out above apply. Such an exercise in ascertaining whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred, would envisage
SA31/15
27
to distinct situations : (i) in which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by the Statute concerned and (ii) where such jurisdiction can be said to be impliedly barred. Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction, the examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedy as provided may be relevant, but is not decisive. In the latter case, the examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find out intendment becomes necessary and the result of such an enquiry may be decisive. Similarly in the latter case (of an implied bar), it is necessary to see if the Statute creates a new right or liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all the questions about such right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunal so constituted and whether remedies normally associated with the action of the Civil Court are prescribed by the Statutes or not.
SA31/15
28
a step further in declaring that any such order passed by such authority under the said Act shall not be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court. Section 32 of the said Act would show that whereever such an issue, which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with or determined by any such authorities under the said Act arises before a Civil Court, the Civil Court shall stay its hands and refer the issue to such authority and the Civil Court shall abide by the decision on such issue by such authority. A conjoint reading of Section 31(2) and Section 32 of the said Act would make it clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters, which are required to be settled, decided, dealt with or determined by any such authorites under the said Act, is expressly barred. In that view of the matter, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai (supra), the examination of the scheme of the said said Act, in order to find out adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided, may only be relevant, but not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction.
SA31/15
29
conditions, so to say, of the mundkars, particularly when the said Act aims at abolishing the system of free service rendered by mundkar and to turn it into a remunerated one. Thus, the scheme of the said Act would show that it creates special rights in favour of the mundkars and the corresponding liabilities on the Bhatkar. The said Act confers jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar, the Collector, the Administrative Tribunal and the Government for purposes of carrying out the object of the said Act. Section 8A of the said Act specifically provides for declaration of a right as a mundkar by persons entitled to any such right under the said Act. Section 15 provides for right of a mundkar to apply for purchase of the dwelling house at the price to be determined in accordance with the said provisions. Section 24 provides for an appeal from every original order passed by the Mamlatdar to the Collector and from an order passed by the Collector to the Administrative Tribunal, which is further subject to a revision under Section 25 of the said Act. It further provides that the order of the Collector or the Administrative Tribunal, as the case may be, subject to revision, if any, shall be final. Section 27 of the said Act confers powers of a Civil Court on the Mamlatdar while conducting enquiries and proceedings under the said Act. Thus, it is evident that the said Act not only creates such rights and liabilities, but also constitutes machinery for redressal of such a right and enforcement of
SA31/15
30
liability / duties. The said Act also provides for a hierarchy of authorities before which the matters can be carried, either in appeal or in revision. In that view of the matter, the said Act is a complete Code in itself. This, if considered in juxtaposition with the bar created under Section 31(2) and Section 32 of the said Act, would make it explicit that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters, which are required to be dealt with or determined by such authorities under the said Act, would stand excluded.
“ 17. Bar to certain proceedings .- Save as is provided in S. 13, no assessment made and no order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by the assessing authority, appellate authority or the Commissioner shall be called into question in any Court, and save as is provided-in sections 11 and 12 no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any such assessment or order.”
SA31/15
31
In the face of the provisions of Section 17, it was held on facts that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred.
SA31/15
32
of Dhulabhai (supra), would be distinguishable, as it arose in the context of the provisions of Section 17 of the M. B. Sales Tax Act.
“Whether the decision of the Mamlatdar under Section 32(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (herein after referred to as “Mundkar Act or Act” as context may require) on an issue being referred to it under Section 32(1) of the said Mundkar Act is subject to an Appeal under Section 24 of the said Act or not? In other words, whether the decision given by the Mamlatdar attains finality as the Civil Court is bound by it and
SA31/15
33
later on, so far as right of appeal is concerned, it having been given under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of all the issues that might be arising in the suit, the decision of the Mamlatdar even under the said Mundkar Act can also be decided by an appeal by appropriate forum under Code of Civil Procedure. (“C.P.C.” for short)”.
In that case, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Suresh Shirodkar & Others vs Administrative Tribunal, reported in [1998]2 GLT 94 was confirmed. In the case of Suresh Shirodkar (supra), it was held that the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar on reference made by the Civil Court, were treated as final, subject to provisions of appeal and revision.
SA31/15
34
the Civil Court, determining tenancy rights of an agricultural land, was barred in view of Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act. It was held that the jurisdiction to decide the said case rests with the Mamlatdar and not with the Civil Court. The impugned judgment was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
SMA
1 issue framed by the court
Does Section 31(2) bar a civil suit seeking to declare mundkar registration and purchase orders void for non-joinder of co-owners and breach of natural justice?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhulabhai, etc. Vs. State of Madhya PradeshDistinguished¶181
AIR 1969 SC 78 · Who else cites this
Ram Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. And other Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and othersDistinguished¶185
1994 Supplement (2) 228
Sagun Dipu Harmalkar and others Vs. Ramakant Ramnath Harmalkar and othersRelied on¶192
1998(3) Bombay C. R. 846
Teresinha Coelho Vs. Dr. Inacio De SaRelied on¶186
2000(2) GLT 318
Daivadnya Brahman Samajotkarshak Saunsthana Vs. Vishveshwar Apa Bhat Raikar & othersRelied on¶193
1999(2) Bombay C R. 595
Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat Vs. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and othersReferred¶119
(1991)2 Supplement 2 SC 228
Suresh Shirodkar & Others vs Administrative TribunalReferred¶191
[1998]2 GLT 94
8 provisions across 1 enactments
Jency Leocadia Costa e Pereira
Agnelo Gonsaga Domingos Santana Pereira
Aleixinho Fernandes
Sylvia Fernandes
Caetano Menino Fernandes
Maria Avelina alias Ivy Fernandes
C. V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
