Niharika Narayan Chari

Santana Furtado Dias Vs. Smt.Uttam Tari :

1985 Mah.L.J. 211
The Court held that the dwelling house must be
constructed by the mundkar himself and not otherwise.
In opinion of the learned Single Judge, the dwelling
house had to be constructed by mundkar and that it was
irrelevant whether such construction was done at his
own expense or at bhatkar’s expense or with financial
assistance from bhatkar.”
Uttam Pednekar V.Atul Bandekar AIR 2000 Bom 178
The dwelling house was constructed in a village 40 years
ago and the caretaker claimed house was constructed in
a village 40 years ago and the caretaker claimed the
mundkar rights. This claim was opposed on the ground
that since village fell within muncipal limits, the rights
of mundkarship could not be claimed.
It was held that though the village could not be said that
the legislature did not intend to extend the benefits of
the Goa,Daman and Diu Buildings Control Act,1968 to
muncipal areas.
Keshav Bablo GawdeVs. Ramakant Khandeparkar 1998
(3) ALLMR 391
A mundkar family occupied 100 meters house with three
other brothers.The brothers opted to occupy another
place that the landlord made available but the appellant
insisted on retaining the whole house on the ground that
it was a joint occupation.It was held that he couldn’t be
forced to shift from the existing mundkarial house to
another site at sweet will of the landlord even if his
brothers have opted to shift out of the jointly held
dwelling house.
Gurudas Ramchandra Pilankar V. Manuel Adeliade
1995(1) Goa L T 154
An appeal filed against the order in which the bhatkar
was allowed to obtain a temporary injunction restraining
mundkars from doing any further construction on the
disputed property. It was held that since the rights of
appellants as mundkar had not been clearly established
by declaration to be made by Mamlatdar as per Section
8- A of the Act, any further construction on suit
property, therefore could be a continuing injury to rights
of respondent –landlords are they were coowners of the
property.
Gurudas Ramchandra Pilankar V. Manuel Adeliade
1995(1) Goa L T 154
An appeal filed against the order in which the bhatkar
was allowed to obtain a temporary injunction restraining
mundkars from doing any further construction on the
disputed property. It was held that since the rights of
appellants as mundkar had not been clearly established
by declaration to be made by Mamlatdar as per Section
8- A of the Act, any further construction on suit
property, therefore could be a continuing injury to rights
of respondent –landlords are they were coowners of the
property.
Leao Vitorina D’Souza Vs.Silvestre Loyola Fernandes
1995(1) GOA LAW TIMES 154
The court held when a finding is given by the Mamlatdar
whether a person is a mundkar under Section 29 if the
Act, it is to be constructed as a declaration under Section
8-A.
No person can be registered as a mundkar unless he is
first recognised or declared to be a mundkar, a
declaration that can be made only under Section 8A.
Maria Conceicao D’Souza v.Jagannath Savoikar 1989 (2)
Goa L.T. 72
A suit was filed in the civil court to evict a person whom
the bhatkar claimed to be a trespasser whereas the
person alleged to be the trespasser claimed that he is a
mundkar.The court held that, by virtue of Section 13, the
suit should be transferred to the Mamlatdar within
whose jurisdiction the dwelling house fell and it is for
him to decided whether the person is a mundkar or not
Suresh Shirodkar vs. Administrative Tribunal 1998(2)
GoaLT 94
It was held that the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar
on a reference made by the Civil Court under Section 32
were treated as final, subject to the provisions of appeal
and revision
Ramnath Bablo Umeraskar Vs. John Carasco 2013 (2)
ALLMR 392
The petitioner had challenged the order of authorities
whereby an application for registration as a mundkar
filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The court
held that by permitting production of documents
without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross
examine on said documents vitiated orders of
authorities below as it had caused prejudice to petitioner
and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar to be
decided.
Prema Gauncar Vs. Administrative Tribunal 1993(2)
BomCR 163
A Mamlatdar dismissed an application of a mundkar on the
ground that the house is not registered in his name in the
records of the Village Panchayat.Instead of preferring an
appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar as prescribed
under Section 29(8) of the Act, the mundkar filed an
application under Section 8-A of the Act before the
Mamlatdar for a declaration being a mundkar in respect of
the house in dispute.
The respondent landlady resisted the application on the
ground that the application was not maintainable in view of
the dismissal of an application filed under Section 29 of the
Act, which objection was found favorable by the Mamlatdar,
and he dismissed the application.
Prema Gauncar Vs. Administrative Tribunal 1993(2)
BomCR 163
On an appeal, the Administrative Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the application under Section 29 of the Act
was only for the registration of mundkarship and the
dismissal of that application could not prevent the appellants
from seeking a declaration of mundkarship rights under
Section 8-A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order, the landlady filed an writ petition
before the Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Goa
who felt that once the Mamlatdar determines that the name
of the appellant cannot be entered in the register as mundkar
(under Section 29), then the said finding amounts to a
declaration contemplated under Section 8-A of the Act.
Prema Gauncar Vs. Administrative Tribunal 1993(2)
BomCR 163
The division bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa
in Gulabi Sangtu Devidas v.Prema Govinda Gauncar set
aside learned Single Judge’s order and held that an
application for a declaration under section 8-A
maintainable inspite of decision recorded by Mamlatdar
under Section 29.s