Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for respondents No.7(a) to 7(f).
2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Tenancy Revision Application No.43/1995.
3. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:
The respondent No.1 claimed to be tenant of the property bearing survey No.119/1 of village Penha de Franca. The respondent No.1 had filed two applications, one under Section 14 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short) and another under Section 18(C) of the Act. The Awal Karkun of Mapusa took up the application under Section 14 of the Act and disposed of the same by order dated 03.03.1992 and thereafter the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez disposed of the application for purchase under Section 18(C) of the Act, by order dated 22.06.1993, wherein the application filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and purchase price was fixed at Rs.9,400/- (Rs.Nine Thousand and Four Hundred only) which was deposited by the respondent No.1 on 17.07.1993 after which the Certificate of Purchase was issued in favour of the respondent No.1.
The petitioners filed appeals against both the orders before the Deputy Collector of Mapusa, which appeals were disposed of the learned Deputy Collector by common order dated 22.11.1995 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.11.1995, the respondent No.1 filed a Tenancy Revision Application No.43/1995. The learned Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 15.06.2005, quashed and set aside the order dated 22.11.1995, passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Mapusa in TNC/PUR/PFA/1/92 and upheld the order dated 22.06.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar, thereby allowing the purchase application. The judgment and order dated 22.11.1995 of the learned Administrative Tribunal, is impugned in the present petition.
4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the order passed by the Mamlatdar, in the original purchase application was illegal since it was passed against the unknown legal heirs of Agustin Periera, due to which the matter had proceeded ex-parte as against the petitioners, before the learned Mamlatdar. Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submitted that since some of the respondents before the Mamlatdar could not be served, service was published in the newspaper and therefore it is a good service.
5. I have perused the material on record and considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Since, indisputably, the publication of service of notice of the purchase application under section 18(C) of the Act, before the Mamlatdar, was done against the unknown legal representatives of Agustin Pereira, due to which the proceedings had proceeded ex-parte as against the petitioners, there was violation of the principles of natural justice, since the petitioners did not get opportunity to put forth their case. Since the service was not effected against the named legal heirs, but unknown legal heirs, the same cannot at all be termed as good service as against the parties. The original order being illegal, it was rightly quashed and set aside by the learned Deputy Collector, thereby remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar, for fresh enquiry by giving opportunities to all the concerned parties. The impugned Judgment and order dated 15.06.2005, of the Administrative Tribunal, and the order dated 22.06.1993, of the Mamlatdar are, therefore, arbitrary and bound to be set aside.
7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with the following order:
ORDER
(a) The impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, in Tenancy Revision application No.43/1995 and the order dated 22.06.1993 passed by the learned Mamlatdar on the purchase application under Section 18(C) of the Act along with the Certificate of Purchase under in Form IIIA under Sub Section (1) of Section 18(H) of the Act, are quashed and set aside.
(b) The matter stands remanded to the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez to take up the application for purchase, under Section 18(C) of the Act and decide the same afresh.
(c) All the parties shall appear before the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez on 08.10.2014 at 3.00 p.m.
(d) Since the legal heirs of the original respondents are now known and on record as petitioners, the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez shall proceed against them after bringing them on record in the said purchase application.
(e) The learned Mamlatdar of Bardez shall dispose of the purchase application as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of the appearance.
8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid, with no order as to costs. The petition stands disposed of.