1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned counsel for the Respondent waives notice.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 17th September 2019 passed by the President, Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 09/2018, by which the Tribunal set aside the Order dated 04th May 2018 passed by the Deputy Collector, Mormugao, and upheld the Order dated 21st November 2016 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-I, Mormugao, declaring the Respondent as Mundkar.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the Respondent's purchase application dated 14th November 2019, bearing Purchase Proceedings No. JM-III/MUND/PURCH/VAS/03/ 2019 was allowed by the Joint Mamlatdar-III, Mormugao, vide Judgment and Order dated 27th July 2021. Subsequently, on depositing the purchase price of Rs. 16,800/-, Purchase Sanad No. 41/03/Purch-Sanad/2022/2376 was issued by the Deputy Collector, Mormugao, on 26th August 2022. Thereafter, the Mutation Mamlatdar passed an Order dated 23rd March 2023, inserting the name of the Respondent in respect of Chalta Nos. 9 and 10 of P.T.S No. 138 of the City Survey of Vasco da Gama. The Inspector of Surveys and Land Records ('ISLR'), by Order dated 14th September 2023, partitioned an area of 200 sq. mtrs. and allotted Chalta No. 10-A of P.T.S No. 138 of the City Survey of Vasco da Gama to the partitioned area. This Court, in its Order dated 19th June 2025, recorded the aforesaid.
4. Accordingly, the Petitioners sought an amendment to the prayer clause of the petition and added corresponding grounds. Vide Order dated 29th August 2025, this Court allowed the amendment. Thus, an additional prayer was incorporated, seeking quashing and setting aside of the Judgment and Order dated 27th July 2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Mormugao, in the Purchase Proceedings; the Purchase Sanad dated 26th August 2022, issued by the Deputy Collector, Mormugao; the Order dated 23rd March 2023 passed by the Mutation Mamlatdar; and the Judgment and Order dated 14th September 2023 of partition and allotment passed by the ISLR.
5. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
i. On 06th July 1978, Mr Ravji Vasudev Pirankar, the Respondent's husband, filed an application before the Mamlatdar, against Mr Joao Barreto, predecessor of the Petitioners, bearing Case No. MUN/VAS/18/84 for registration as a Mundkar under Section 29 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 ('Mundkar Act'). The same was dismissed by Order dated 23rd November 1984 as the Respondent's husband admitted to paying ground rent to Mr Joao Barreto.
ii. Thereafter, on 11th November 1997, the Respondent filed an application under Section 8A of the Mundkar Act bearing Case No. JT-I/MUND/MOR/02/1998 before the Mamlatdar, Mormugao, Vasco da Gama, for her declaration as Mundkar of a dwelling house in the property situated at Bhute Bhat, surveyed under Chalta No. 9 (part) and 10 (part) of P.T. Sheet No. 138 of the City Survey of Vasco da Gama, Goa ('suit dwelling house'), which is owned by the Petitioners. The Petitioner's mother, Lourdina Barreto, filed her objections on 07th August 1998, stating that the Respondent suppressed the dismissal of previous proceedings initiated by her husband, and that the Respondent, along with her husband, were residing in the suit dwelling house, on payment of ground rent.
iii. On 01st December 2004, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the Respondent's husband passed away. After adducing evidence, the Respondent, having examined her son, Mr Prabhakar Rauji Shet, as Power of Attorney ('POA'), Mr Subash Babu Shet, Mr Narendra Shet Tanawade and Mr Arun K. Desai, and the Petitioners having examined Mr Anthony Barreto, the Joint Mamlatdar-I, Mormugao, passed Order dated 21st November 2016, declaring the Respondent as Mundkar of the suit dwelling house.
iv. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners, on 17th January 2017, preferred an appeal bearing Case No. SDO/MOR/MUND/APPL/2/2017, before the Deputy Collector and S.D.O, Mormugao, Vasco da Gama, Goa. By Order dated 04th May 2018, the appeal was allowed and the Order dated 21st November 2016, declaring the Respondent as Mundkar of the suit dwelling house, was quashed and set aside.
v. The Respondent filed Mundkar Revision Application No.9/2018 before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa, impugning the said Order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Mormugao. The Tribunal passed the Judgement and Order dated 17th September 2019, setting aside the Order impugned therein, and upholding the Order dated 21st November 2016 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-I, which declared the Respondent as the Mundkar of the suit dwelling house. It is this Judgment and Order that is impugned herein.
6. Mr Ajit Kantak, learned Counsel, represented the Petitioners and Mr Shivan Desai, learned Counsel, represented the Respondent.
7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
i. Mr Kantak submits that the Administrative Tribunal ought to have held the observations in the Deputy Collector's order to be perverse or having resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
ii. That the criteria set out under Section 2(p) of the Mundkar Act are not satisfied by the Respondent inasmuch as her fixed habitation in the suit dwelling house, one year prior to the appointed date, i.e., 12th March 1976, is not proved.
iii. That the documents relied upon by the Respondent, such as the House Tax, Water Bill, Electricity Bill, Election Identity Card, Ration Card, are of the period subsequent to the appointed date and hence, do not support her case.
iv. That the Electoral Roll of 1975 pertains to House No. 176 situated at Mestwada, Belbaim-Tambelim Uddi, and not to the suit dwelling house, which is situated at Bhute Bhat.
v. That the House Tax certificate mentions the house number as MMC/PL/MHN-1, and no document was produced to establish that the house number mentioned in the Electoral Roll corresponds to the house number mentioned in the House Tax certificate.
vi. That the Respondent fraudulently got the House Tax transferred in her name, which was later reverted by the Municipality in the name of the Petitioners.
vii. That Mr Prabhakar Shet, the POA of the Respondent, was born in 1975; he had no personal knowledge, and the non-examination of the Respondent and her husband would prove fatal to her case.
viii. That the POA, failed to establish that Pirankar Rauji Vasudev and Pirankar Kashi Rauji, as mentioned in the Electoral Roll, are the Respondent and her husband.
ix. That there are no documents to prove that the suit dwelling house was built by the Respondent's father-in-law.
x. That the Order dated 23rd November 1984, dismissing the application for registration of Respondent's husband as Mundkar, was never challenged and hence, still remains in force.
xi. Mr Kantak relied on the following decision in support of his contentions:
1) Cyril Sequeira v/s Victor Joao Baptista Sequeira @ John Baptist Sequeira, Thr. Attorney, Anthony Francis Lobo (CDJ 2023 BHC 328)
Hence, Mr Kantak prays that the petition be allowed.
8. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
i. Mr Desai submits that the Administrative Tribunal acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the statute and hence, the impugned Judgment and Order passed by it cannot be termed as perverse or irregular, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227.
ii. That the evidence of the POA was based on documents, and hence, the non-examination of the Respondent and her husband cannot be termed as fatal to their case.
iii. It is misconceived that Section 2(p) of the Mundkar Act has the effect of freezing the right of a Mundkar on the appointed date, and therefore, the relevant evidence has to be that of the appointed date or prior thereto.
iv. That the mention of the suit dwelling house in the Survey of 1971-1972, and the testimony of two witnesses, Mr Subash Babu Shet, Mr Narendra Shet Tanawade, establish the fixed habitation of the Respondent in the suit dwelling house, since before the appointed date.
v. Mr Desai relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
1) Gopal Mahadev Sawant v/s Mariano S. Jose Godinho (1990 (2) Goa L.T. 347)
2) Smt. Gulabi Sangtu Devidas and Ors. v/s Prema Govinda Gauncar and Ors. (1993 SCC OnLine Bom 308)
3) M/s Puri Investments v/s M/s Young Friends and Co. and Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 283)
4) Garment Craft v/s Prakash Chand Goel ((2022) 4 SCC 181)
5) Janardhan J. Shirke v/s Mrs. Ana Francisco Fernanda and Ors. (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 187)
Hence, Mr Desai prays that the petition be dismissed.
9. I have heard both the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.
ANALYSIS:
10. Before adverting to the contentions of the parties and analysing the same, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions relating to the dispute. Sections 2(p), 8A and 28 read thus: -
“2(p) “Mundkar” means a person who, with the consent of the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar lawfully resides with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house with or without obligation to render any services to the bhatkar and includes a member of his family but does not include—
(i) a person paying rent to the bhatkar for the occupation of the house;
(ii) a domestic servant or a chowkidar who is paid wages and who resides in an out-house, house-compound or other portion of his employerߥs residence;
(iii) a person employed in a mill, factory, mine, workshop or a commercial establishment and is residing in the premises belonging to the owner or person in charge of such mill, factory, mine, workshop or commercial establishment, in connection with his employment in such mill, factory, mine workshop or commercial establishment; and
(iv) a person residing in the whole or part of a house belonging to another person or in an out-house existing in the compound of the house, as a care-taker of the said house or for purposes of maintaining it in habitable condition.
Explanation.— A person shall be deemed to be lawfully residing with the consent of the bhatkar in a dwelling house if such person resides in it for a period exceeding one year prior to the appointed date and the bhatkar has not initiated any proceedings, during the said period of one year, to evict such person from the dwelling house, through a competent court of law, on the ground that such person was a trespasser or, having so initiated such proceedings, does not succeed in obtaining a decree for the eviction of such person."
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."
“29. Register of Mundkars.— (1) In respect of every village, the Government shall cause a register of Mundkars to be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner.
(2) The register shall contain the following particulars, namely:—
(a) the particulars and description of the dwelling house;
(b) the location of the dwelling house;
(c) the name and address of the bhatkar;
(d) the name and address of the Mundkar;
(e) the nature and extent of service, rendered to the bhatkar or the amount of ground rent if any paid;
(f) the occupation of the Mundkar;
(g) the rights referred to under section 6; and
(h) such other particular as may be prescribed.
(3) The register shall be prepared and maintained by the Mamlatdar after such inquiry as may be prescribed.
(4) The Mamlatdar shall, before the preparation of the register, publish a notice, in every revenue village inviting applications from the Mundkars for registration and to be presented before such date as may be specified in the notice or such further time as may be allowed by him:
Provided that if, at any time after the publication of the notice, it is found that a Mundkar has failed to apply for registering his name the talathi within whose jurisdiction the dwelling house is situated may, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, propose to the Mamlatdar to enter the name of such Mundkar in the concerned register of Mundkars and the Mamlatdar shall dispose of the same as provided under sub-section (5).
[Explanation.— The expression ’revenue villageߥ includes villages in the municipal areas.]
(5) On receipt of the application within the time specified in the notice or within such further time as may be allowed by him, the Mamlatdar shall, give notice to the bhatkar and any other person interested in the land in which the dwelling house situate calling upon them to file objections, if any and requiring them to appear at a time and date specified in the notice for inquiry into the application.
(6) On the dates specified in the notice or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the Mamlatdar shall hear such of the persons who appear and after such inquiry as may be prescribed, register the Mundkar or reject the application.
(7) The order of the Mamlatdar under sub-section (6) shall be served on the interested persons and shall also be published in the notice boards of the village Office of the village in which the dwelling house is situate.
(8) Any person aggrieved by the registration of a Mundkar or by the refusal to register a person claiming to be a Mundkar may, within sixty days from the date of registration or refusal, as the case may be, file an appeal to the Collector.
(9) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (8) the Collector may call for the records of any proceeding under sub-section (6) and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and may pass such orders thereon as he deems fit:
Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
11. Admittedly, the Respondent's husband had applied to the concerned authority for registration of the Respondent's name in the Register of Mundkars. The application was rejected on the grounds that the Respondent was paying ground rent to the concerned Government. This was the Petitioner's main defence to challenge the Respondent's mundkarial claim. The Administrative Tribunal has dealt with this issue in great detail. It is settled law that the inquiry under Section 29 of the Mundkar Act is only for the purpose of entering a person's name as a Mundkar in the Register maintained under the Act and has only presumptive value. The substantive provision declaring a person to be a Mundkar is Section 8A of the Act. Merely because the Section 29 application filed by the Respondent's husband was dismissed, it cannot serve as a basis for dismissing the Respondent's mundkarial claim. The Administrative Tribunal has thus dealt with this issue from the correct perspective, and there is no illegality therein.
12. The Administrative Tribunal has also analysed the evidence of the witnesses, who deposed before the Mamlatdar's Court, and appreciated it. The evidence of Mr Subhash Shet and Mr Narendra Sitaram Shet Tanavade that the Respondent has been residing in the said house for more than 50 years with fixed habitation proves the Respondent's mundkarial claim. Furthermore, the ration card, election card, site inspection report of 1984, and electricity and water bills also establish the Respondent's claim to mundkarship. The Tribunal has also considered the object of enacting the Mundkar Act of 1975 to give better protection to Mundkars against eviction from dwelling houses and to grant them the right to purchase such houses at a reasonable price. The Tribunal has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court dealing with the issue and has correctly upheld the order of the Mamlatdar Court.
13. The only basis on which the Deputy Collector has reversed the order of the Mamlatdar declaring the Respondent as Mundkar is a purported lease deed stated to have been executed by and between the parties. The Deputy Collector has proceeded on the assumption that payment of ground rent to continue usage of the house indicates a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Deputy Collector further relied upon a lease deed purported to have been executed for a period of 11 months and renewed till 1997. According to the Deputy Collector, the lease deed itself nullifies the Respondent's mundkarial claim. The Deputy Collector, however, overlooked the fact that an agreement purporting to be a lease agreement, although produced before the Mamlatdar, the Petitioner has neither proved the same nor has he bothered to produce any corroborative document to demonstrate payment of rent to the Petitioner. Neither rent receipts nor any other tenancy documents have ever been produced before either the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector, the Administrative Tribunal, or this Court. Even in the revenue records of the property, there is no mention of the Respondent as a lessee. The Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of the purported lease deed. In fact, the Tribunal has also observed that Smt. Bernadetta Barreto claiming the Respondent to be a tenant has neither filed an eviction suit nor any application for recovery of rent. Moreover, the Respondent has denied the alleged lease agreement and further denied her husband's signature thereon. It is also not explained as to how a lease agreement of 1987 was converted into a licence agreement from 1993. In any case, the Respondent has been residing in the premises since 60 years prior to her application seeking a declaration as Mundkar. Hence, the Tribunal's finding that the lease or licence agreement alleged to have been executed by the parties does not affect the Respondent's mundkarial claim is sustainable. There is no perversity in the finding and consequent judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal, warranting an interference in the said impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
14. Rule is accordingly discharged.
