GURU MADARversusCOMMUNIDADE OF MORMUGAO REP BY ITS ATTORNEY

2026:BHC-GOA:1800
                                               1 CA 95 2026

                Sonam

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2026
                                           IN
                        CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2026
           GURU MADAR                                               ... APPLICANT
             Versus
           COMMUNIDADE OF MORMUGAO REP BY ITS
           ATTORNEY                                                 ... RESPONDENT


           Mr. Sherwyn Filipe Francisco Correia, Advocate for the
           Applicant.


                                CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                                DATED :- 4th September, 2026

           P.C.

           1.     This civil application takes exception to an order dated
           18.05.2026, by which the Petitioner/original Defendant’s application
           under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The main grounds
           raised in the application seeking rejection of the plaint are as follows:

           (a) That the Plaintiff, who is the Communidade, has instituted the
           suit despite there being a bar under Article 371 of the Code of
           Communidade.

           (b) That the Attorney of the Communidade, who has filed the suit
           and verified the plaint, was not empowered to represent the
           Communidade in terms of Article 30 of the Code.



                                                  Page 1 of 4
                                              4th September, 2026
                                  1 CA 95 2026




2.   On perusing the plaint, the same has been verified by
the Attorney of the Communidade. The verification states that
the particular paragraphs of the plaint are true to his own
knowledge. He has filed the same as the Attorney of the
Communidade. On the face of the plaint, there is nothing to infer that
the Attorney of the Communidade was not empowered to institute the
plaint.

          The only argument raised is that the plaint came to be
instituted only after the General Body of the Communidades
denigrates over the allegations of the illegal construction, and
thereafter empowers the attorney to file such a plaint; that plaint can
be instituted.

3.   This, as I see is the allegation of the Defendant which is
contained in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which
may be his defence, but at this Stage, the Court cannot look into the
defence of the parties and must restrict itself to examining the
averments in the plaint and documents which may be annexed to
the plaint. Restricting myself to the perusal of the plaint, there is
nothing in the plaint which can be inferred to bar the jurisdiction of
this Court, and entertain the plaint which is filed at the behest of the
Attorney of the Communidade, who otherwise is elected to represent
the Communidade in all matters.

4.   The other ground of seeking rejection of the plaint that is
                                     Page 2 of 4
                                 4th September, 2026
                                 1 CA 95 2026

urged is that the provisions of Article 371, as now amended,
constitute a bar to the       institution of the suit by the
Communidade. It is submitted that since the provisions of
Article 371, as amended, now require the Communidade to file the
complaint to the Director of Civil Administration, i.e. the
Collector or its nominee, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
impliedly barred.


5.     I have perused the provisions of Article 371 and, in my
opinion, there is neither an express nor an implied bar that can be
inferred from reading of the provisions. The provisions now confer
the powers to the Collector to take such action, such as eviction
or removal of a person who is unauthorisedly in occupation of land
that vests with the Communidade. This, however, does not imply that
the powers of the Civil Court conferred under Section 9 of CPC
are barred.


6.   It is a settled law that the bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is not to be easily inferred. In the present case, the plain
reading of Article 371, would lead to the conclusion that now the
Collector, in addition to the Civil Court, has been given such
powers to evict unauthorised persons in the Communidade land
only to provide a quicker remedy that by itself does not mean that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Similar would be the case
if one examines the provisions of Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj
Act or Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, both of which
                                    Page 3 of 4
                                4th September, 2026
                                  1 CA 95 2026

contain similar provisions.


7.   However, these provisions, though empowers certain
authorities to have        executive powers            to   take   quick
action to    remove unauthorised encroachments on the land of
the Communidade or even on private lands, but these
provisions would never bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
entertain the suit.


8.   On going through the Judgment of the Trial Court, the
Trial Court has considered both the aforementioned provisions
and, on going through the plaint, has applied all legal principles
on the Court’s proceedings and rejected the application. There
is no reason to interfere with the impugned. The application
therefore stands rejected in limine.


9.   In view of the above, Civil Revision Application No. 33 of
2026 stands disposed of.



                                               VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                       Page 4 of 4
                                 4th September, 2026