Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 19.09.2013 of the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to pay conversation fees in terms of the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act 2013 and accordingly direct the Respondents to recalculate the fees payable by the Petitioner on the basis of the area of conversion at the rates applicable on the date of making of the application dated 08.03.2013 with further direction that the excess fees recovered from the Petitioner towards conversion fees be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereof. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner along with the other co-owners of the property, had applied for permission under Section 32 of the Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 to con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein are the original defendant nos. 2 to 6, while the respondent nos. 1 to 13 are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their original capacity. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 16/2013, against petitioners and others for permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of dispute is 16,168 square metres of land out of survey no. 60/2 (old matriz no. 786) of the property known as Um Terreno Oiteral Aforado situated at Sancoale. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the larger area bearing matriz no. 786 situated at Sancoale, Dabolim Village, Mormugao, was belonging to Shri Marcal alias Joao Paulo Mesquita, who died intestate leaving behind his moiety holder, Smt. Joaquina Mesquita (defendant no. 1). Marcal Mesquita sold 3,932 square metres of land to Shri Domingos Dia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 2 A.O. no.59 of 2015 3. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. 4. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code ( C.P.C. for short) assailing the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2015 passed by the District Judge-II, Margao whereby the learned Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to refer the issue of mundkarship to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that he had filed the suit to restrain his mother from alienating the suit property and to restrain the respondent no.1 from interfering in the suit property which was dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2015. He had preferred an appeal before the District Court but which had gone at a tangent to the issue of mundkarship and to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to refer the issue of mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, is to the communication dated 20/03/2015, whereunder, the respondent has refused to lift the abeyance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of the Title Concession (TC No.65/51) Pola Dongor Iron and Manganese Ore of the petitioner, on the ground that a part of the mining area, is a forest land. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus: That on 18/07/2007, the respondent had granted environmental clearance to the petitioner's Mining Lease (TC No.65/51) under EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006. On 12/07/2010, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa vide their letter dated 12/07/2010, informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the State Government has approved the proposal to process the case, for obtaining the clearance under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect and examine the records of the Goa Meat Complex to look into its affairs and submit a report within a time bound framed. It further seeks a direction to the Respondents to stop forthwith slaughtering all animals present within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex and further to stop forthwith any cow and bull slaughter in the Goa Meat Complex. It also seeks a direction to the Goa Meat Complex to handover the animals, cows, bulls and calves presently within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex to the Petitioners. It further prays to direct the police and the said authorities to initiate proceedings against the offenders including against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. It further seeks a direction to ensure strict compliance and any implementation of the Goa Daman and Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and The Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995. 2. By an Order dated 22.04.2013,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the leaned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Bank Matter No.81/2007/A. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for excluding certain part of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and raising objection as to the admissibility of a portion, thereof has been rejected, as being premature. The learned trial Court has kept the substantive contentions open, to be raised at the time of final arguments. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of money, by way of refund and compensation. On behalf of the petitioner, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge at Panaji, to entertain the suit. This is basically on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Service to respondent no.3 (original defendant no.2) is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The first and the second respondents had filed a suit for possession and mesne-profits against the petitioner and the third respondent. The suit was decreed in the year 2007, which is the subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2010 before the learned District Judge at Panaji. It appears that an application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage, which was rejected on 27/02/2014. However, by an order dated 29/11/2014, the Appellate Court reviewed the order dated 27/02/2014 and permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent nos.1 and 2 before this Court in Appeal from Order No.4/2015, which was dismissed on 20/02/2015. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant, is challenging the order dated 12/10/2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Collector and Rent Controller, Mapusa in Rent/MAP/7/1992, which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 20/12/2013 in Rent Appeal No.33/2013. As a result, the petitioner has been directed to be evicted, as being consistently in arrears of rent under Section 32(4) of the Goa Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short). 3. The brief facts are that, premises known as 'Adarsh Niwas', situated at Feira-Baixa, Mapusa, wherein the petitioner is conducting a bar and restaurant, are subject matter of dispute. The disputed premises were let out by now deceased Jivottam Naik to late father of the petitioner Shripad Atmaram Gadekar. After the death of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel, waive service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Although the dispute, out of which, this petition arises, is still at an interim stage, the same has acquired a checkered history. 3. The respondent no. 1-the Goa Housing Board had carried out an auction of a residential plot at Porvorim, Penha de Franca, Bardez, Goa, which auction was held on 30.08.2010. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of plot no. 19 admeasuring 335 square metres and had bidded for an amount of Rs.44,98,200/-. Accordingly, as per the order of allotment dated 26.11.2010, the said plot (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) was allotted in favour of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining amount of the price, within 25 days. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the date of auction when he went to inspect the site, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and by consent, both the petitions were taken up together for final disposal. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, in violation of the various provisions of the Code of Comunidades, namely Articles 342, 326, 329, 334, 334-A have usurped the land belonging to the Comunidade of Serula without following the due process of law, nor the mandatory provisions as contemplated in the said Code. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the usurpation of the land by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 in survey nos. 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 of the Comunidade, which according to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!