Bombay High Court
ATCHUT GOPAL POI RAITURKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.,versusBHAIRO NAVLO NATOSSE AND 30 ORS.,
- Disposal
- Disposed of
- Bench
- VALMIKI MENEZES
Holding
The court held that the consent terms are fair and valid, and the appeal is disposed of by issuing a decree in accordance with those terms.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa considered a second appeal (SA 67 of 2015) where the appellants, represented by Ajit R. Kantak and Reshma A. Kantak, had previously entered into a consent decree with many respondents. Certain respondents (Nos.5(a)-5(d), 6, 10(d)-10(e), 13, 14) were initially excluded from the decree but later executed consent terms, each supported by duly executed powers of attorney and identified by Aadhaar cards. The court verified that the parties freely signed the consent terms, reviewed the accompanying land allotment plan, and found the settlement fair. Consequently, the court ordered that a decree be drawn up reflecting the newly executed consent terms and that the appeal be disposed of on that basis. The decree incorporates the plot allocations ‘E’, ‘G’, and ‘P’ to the respondents as per the consent terms.
Issues considered
- Can the consent terms executed by the previously excluded respondents be incorporated into the existing decree?
- Does the presence of valid powers of attorney and Aadhaar identification satisfy procedural requirements for consent decree enforcement?
- Is the appeal properly disposed of on the basis of a settlement reflected in the consent terms?
Subjects
- consent decree
- settlement
- second appeal
- power of attorney
- land allotment
- plot allocation
- procedural fairness
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:153
SA 67 of 2015
Suzana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2015
ATCHUT GOPAL POI RAITURKAR
(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES., ... APPELLANTS
Versus
BHAIRO NAVLO NATOSSE AND 30 ORS., ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ajit R. Kantak, Advocate with Ms. Reshma A. Kantak, Advocate for
the Appellants.
Mr. Pravesh Misal, Advocate for Respondent nos.5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 6,
10(d), 10(e), 13 and 14.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 2nd February, 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. In this Court's Order of 24.01.2025, a Consent Decree had been
recorded between the Appellants No.1(a) for himself and as Attorney
of Appellant No.1(b) on the one hand and Respondent No.1, 2, 3(a) to
3(d), 4, 7, 8(a) to 8(h), 10(a) to 10(i), 15, 16, 16(a), 16(b), 17 to 20, 25
to 28, 11(c) to 11(d), 21, 22, 11(f), 11(g), 11(a)(i) to 11(a)(iv), 23(a) to
23(d) and 24. Those Consent Terms were taken on record, and the
Second Appeal stood disposed of as settled amongst those parties.
2. The Second Appeal excluded Respondents No.5(a), 5(b), 5(c),
5(d), 6, 10(d), 10(e), 13 and 14.
Page 1 of 3
2nd February, 2026
SA 67 of 2015
3. Today, Respondents No.5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d) and 6, Respondents
No.10(d) and 10(e) and Respondents No.13 and 14 have executed the
Consent Terms with Appellants No.1(a) and 1(b), and have placed
those Terms on record; the Terms are marked 'X' for identification.
4. The Consent Terms have been signed by Appellant No.1(a) for
himself and as Attorney of his wife, Appellant No.1(b). The Power of
Attorney dated 26.08.2022 by which Appellant No.1(a) represents his
wife, is on record. The Consent Terms are also signed by Respondents
No.5(a) for himself, 5(b) for himself and as Attorney of Respondents
No.5(c), 5(d), and Respondent No.6 vide Power of Attorney dated
24.05.2025, which is produced on record. Respondent No.10(d) and
10(e) are represented by his son Pradip Misal, who has signed the
Terms on behalf of his parents. The Power of Attorney dated
17.11.2025 is also placed on record. Respondents No.13 and 14 have
executed the Terms through their son Rama Misal, who is present in
Court and who has signed the Terms by virtue of a Power of Attorney
dated 06.06.2025, which is also produced on record. The Respondents
are identified by their Aadhaar cards, which are placed on record with
the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are accompanied by a Plan,
and under the Consent Terms, plots 'E', 'G' and 'P' have been allotted to
the Respondents in the manner stated in the Consent Terms.
5. The parties and their Attorneys are present before me. I have
ascertained from them that they have executed these Terms, and they
Page 2 of 3
2nd February, 2026
SA 67 of 2015
have read the contents of the Consent Terms and seen the Plan under
which the allotment of plots has been made. They record that the
Consent Terms have been executed by them freely and without any
coercion, and they accept the same.
6. On reading the Consent Terms, the settlement recorded between
the parties therein appears to be fair. The Second Appeal can therefore
be disposed of by drawing up a Decree in terms of Consent Terms
dated 02.02.2026 marked 'X' for identification by me, and in terms of
the Consent Terms filed by the said Respondents referred to in
paragraph 1 above, executed on 24.01.2025.
7. Decree to be drawn up accordingly. The Second Appeal No.67
of 2015 stands disposed of in terms of the settlement of the Consent
Terms filed by the parties.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Page 3 of 3
Date: 02/02/2026 16:59:54
2nd February, 2026
Checking your session…