Dismissed

Minguel Mendes., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2019WP/109/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed five writ petitions challenging Section 33(3) of the Goa Land Revenue Code. The court refused interim relief due to the petitioners' failure to clarify who erected unauthorized structures or obtained permissions, as the properties were agricultural. Ultimately, petitions were dismissed as the constitutional challenge was not entertained on facts and not fo

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; no order as to costs; constitutional challenge not entertained as petitioners failed to make out a case.

Minguel Mendes., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

mukund 1 wp105 to 110.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2019

¶4

Jose Manuel Monteiro…Petitioner
 Versus
State of Goa, Thr. Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2019

¶6

Francisco Fernandes…Petitioner

¶7

 Versus
State of Goa, Thr.Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2019

¶9

Ana Maria Rodrigues…Petitioner
 Versus
State of Goa, Thr.Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2019

¶11

Andrew Rodrigues…Petitioner
 Versus
State of Goa, Thr.Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶12

mukund 2 wp105 to 110.2019

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2019

¶14

Minguel Mendes…Petitioner
 Versus
State of Goa, Thr.Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2019

¶16

Antonio F.X.Pereira…Petitioner
 Versus
State of Goa, Thr.Its
Chief Secretary and another….Respondents

¶17

Mr. Dhaval Damodar Zaveri, Advocate for all the Petitioners.

¶18

Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Ms. Priyanka
Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, in
WP Nos.105/2019 to 107/2019 and 109/2019.

¶19

Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh
Shivolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, in
WP Nos.108/2019.

¶20

Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Mr.Arun
A.S.Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents,
in WP No.110/2019.

¶21

Coram : M.S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 29 January 2019. P.C. :

¶22

mukund

¶23

 3 wp105 to 110.2019

¶24

In all these petitions, the challenge is to the provisions of
Section 33 (3) of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968.

¶25

2. All these petitions were moved for interim relief on 18th
January 2019, we made the following order:-

¶26

“Mr. D. Zaveri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
on instructions, states that the Petitioner is an
agricultural tenant of the property in which the
structures which are not proposed to be demolished
are located. Mr. Zaveri is, however, unable to make
any statement as to whether it is the Petitioner who
has put up the structures in question. Mr. Zaveri is
also unable to explain as to whether such structures
were put up with any permissions from any of the
statutory Authorities. Mr. Zaveri is also unable to
explain as to how the structure came to be put up in
the tenanted property by the person who claims to be
an agricultural tenant. There are no photographs
annexed to the Petition to indicate the nature of
structures.

¶27

2. In the aforesaid circumstances, merely on the basis
that vires of Section 33(iii) of the Goa Land Revenue
Code has been questioned, we do not deem it
appropriate to grant the Petitioner any ad interim
relief. Accordingly, the prayer for ad interim relief is
refused.

¶28

3. Place this Petition for further consideration on 28
January 2019.

¶29

4. The Petitioner to clear the office objections within one week from today.

¶30

mukund 4 wp105 to 110.2019

¶31

5. Mr. Kamat, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate
waives service for the Respondents.”

¶32

3. We are today informed that structures in question have
already been demolished. As noted earlier, the petitioners were unable
to state with clarity, who had put up these structures and whether the
structures were put up with any permissions and clearances from any
statutory Authorities. The petitioners claimed to be agricultural
tenants. Normally, the properties vested in agricultural tenants cannot
be used for any purposes other than the agriculture. In these
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to disclose the
genesis of such structures. In the absence of such disclosures, in our
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, we would not be in a position to extend any
reliefs to the petitioners, on facts.

¶33

4. It is settled position in law that issues on constitutionality
of a statute are not to be decided for mere academic purpose. In the
present case, even if we were rule in favour of the petitioners on law,
on facts, the petitioners have made out no case whatsoever for grant of
any reliefs or for extending any protection to the structures in
questions. In these circumstances, at the behest of the present

¶34

mukund 5 wp105 to 110.2019

¶35

petitioners, it will not be appropriate to entertain any constitutional
challenge to Section 33 (3) of the Land Revenue Code. Such
challenge, can perhaps be considered in appropriate case instituted by
appropriate petitioner.

¶36

5. At this stage, Mr. Zaveri, learned counsel for the
petitioners, expresses an apprehension that by referring to the
provisions of Section 33 (3) of the Land Revenue Code, the
respondents may prevent the petitioners from undertaking agricultural
activities. This apprehension is entirely misconceived. Even the learned
Advocate General states that, if the petitioners are really agricultural
tenants in respect of the properties in question, then obviously, there
can be no prohibition to they undertaking any agricultural activities
in the property in question.

¶37

6. For all the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M.S.Sonak, J.

Minguel Mendes., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minguel Mendes., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patrick Gabriel Byrne and Anr., Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finances, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Eng. Sheldon S. Martins., Vs the Secretary, Village Panchayat of Taleigao and 2 Ors.

Federation of Rainbow Warriors, Thr. Its Members, Arun v. Madgavkar and Viraj v. Bakre., Vs Directorate of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Goa, Thr. Its Director and 5 Ors.

Andrew Rodrigues., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Ana Maria Rodrigues., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Shubadha Subhash Masurkar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 5 Ors.