Bombay High Court
SANDIP KUSHALI BORKER AND 3 ORSversusANITA ANAND BORKAR ALIAS ANITA ANANT BORKAR ALIAS ANITA BORKAR AND 4 ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The Court held that the Deputy Collector was correct in limiting his review to the validity of the interim injunction and should not have disposed of the original Mamlatdar proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of a property in Velim, Salcete, challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Mamlatdar that restrained them from demolishing a house claimed under mundkar rights by the respondents. The Deputy Collector set aside the Mamlatdar's order, finding the respondents' application non‑maintainable under Section 8‑A of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, and also disposed of the original Mamlatdar proceedings. The respondents appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which held that the Deputy Collector should have limited his review to the interim order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view, stating that the Deputy Collector was correct in not disposing of the original proceedings while hearing the appeal, and found no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the Deputy Collector was directed to decide the pending matters within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector could dispose of the original Mamlatdar proceedings while hearing an appeal against the interim injunction.
- Whether the respondents' application for mundkar rights was maintainable under Section 8‑A of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975.
Legislation cited
- Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 — s. 8-A
Subjects
- mundkar rights
- interim injunction
- administrative law
- Goa Mundkars Act
- revision
- property law
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1948
905 WP 515 2026
Amrut
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2026
SANDIP KUSHALI BORKER AND 3 ORS ... PETITIONERS
Versus
ANITA ANAND BORKAR ALIAS ANITA
ANANT BORKAR ALIAS ANITA BORKAR
AND 4 ORS ... RESPONDENTS
Mr Preetam Talaulikar and Ms Sara Dessai, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Mr Vledson Braganza and Mr Pancham Phadte, Advocates for
the Respondents.
CORAM:- S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED :- 30th September, 2026
P.C.:
1. Petitioners impugn the order dated 27th April 2026 passed
by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision
Application No.8/2024 whereby order dated 24th January 2024
passed by the Deputy Collector, Margao in case No.
SDO-II/SAL/MUND-APPL/01/2023/171 has been quashed and set
aside and the matter was relegated back for reconsideration.
2. It is the contention of the Petitioners that they are owners
and possessors of property bearing Survey No.380/1 admeasuring
Page 1 of 3
30th September, 2026
905 WP 515 2026
350 square metres situated at Velim, Salcete Goa, since they had
purchased the same under sale deed dated 30th June 1969.
Respondents filed an application for declaration of mundkarial
rights in respect of house structure situated in the suit property,
along with an application for temporary injunction to restrain the
Petitioners from demolishing the construction or narrowing access
available to them.
3. On 20th December 2022, the Mamlatdar allowed
application for temporary injunction restraining Petitioners from
demolishing the construction. Aggrieved Petitioners approached
the Deputy Collector, Margao, challenging the order of Mamlatdar.
The Deputy Collector arrived at conclusion that Respondents'
application before Mamlatdar was not maintainable in terms of
Section 8-A of Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act,
1975. Eventually not only allowed the Petitioners' appeal but also
disposed of the original proceedings filed before the Mamlatdar.
4. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, Respondents filed Mundkar
Revision Application before the Administrative Tribunal, which
was allowed by impugned order.
5. Perusal of impugned order suggests that the Tribunal was of
the view that when the Sub-Divisional Officer was dealing with
appeal against interim order, he could have restricted consideration
Page 2 of 3
30th September, 2026
905 WP 515 2026
to the merits of said order and could not have disposed of the
original proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar upon objection
as to maintainability at the interim stage. In light of aforesaid
observations, the matter was relegated back to the Deputy Collector
for deciding the appeal on merits.
6. This Court finds that observations made by the Tribunal
are in tune with legal position. The Deputy Collector while dealing
with appeal against interim order could have simply considered
validity and legality of interim injunction order passed by the
Mamlatdar. There was no reason to dispose of original proceedings
pending before the Mamlatdar. In that view of the matter, this
Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands
rejected.
7. Needless to state here that the Deputy Collector shall
endeavour to decide the proceedings pending before him
expeditiously and in any case, within a period of three months from
today. Parties to cooperate.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Signed by: TARI AMRUT NAGESH
Designation: Private Secretary
Page 3 of 3
Date: 30/09/2026 18:19:02
30th September, 2026
Checking your session…