Shri Baptista Sao Francisco Fernandes vs Smt. Christalina Fernands, (since deceased through her heirs) (Filicio Gabrial Fernandes, Domingos Antonio Fernandes, Simao Fernandes and Albert Fernandes) All, Shri Vasudev Balaraj Desai, (since deceased through his legal heirs) (Shri Ganesh Vasudev Desai and Others) The Respondents 2(1) to 2(12) are represented By one Mr. Ashok Mahadev Desai, Indian National, through the Power of Attorney dated 5/12/1996 executed before Notary Public Adv. N. N. Konkar Of 2 and The State of Goa

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri Nigel D'' Costa Frais, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri M. B. D'' Costa, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4) and Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 13. At the outset, learned Counsel Shri Nigel Costa Frias, appearing for the Petitioner, seeks to amend so as to incorporate a relief.

Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service.

The above Petition challenges the Order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application no. 22/2011, whereby the application for intervention filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected.

Shri Nigel D'' Costa Frais, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that he is entitled to intervene in the said proceedings as, according to him, the proceedings which are pending before the learned Mamlatdar filed by the Respondents is for purchase of the dwelling house and that in case the Petitioner does not intervene, it may result in multiplicity of the proceedings. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as there was a controversy as whether an Authority was already notified to hear a revision under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Goa Daman & Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction Act) 1975, the Petitioner was forced to approach the Court in the above Petition.

Shri M. B. D'' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4), though disputes the fact that there is any overlapping with the area claimed by the said Respondents, nevertheless does not raise any grievance in case the Petitioner is permitted to intervene in the proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar.

As there was a controversy as to whether any Authority was notified to hear the revision u/s 25 of the Goa Mundkar Act, 1975, a notice was issued to the learned Addl. Government Advocate to clarify on the said aspect. Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate, who is present today, submits that there is no notification to that effect. Shri M. B. D'' Costa, learned Senior Counsel, as such states that the impugned Order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the learned Deputy Collector may be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the rival contentions and submissions made by the learned Counsel referred to herein above, I pass the following :

ORDER

(i) The impugned Order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the Order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Petitioner shall be permitted to intervene in the proceedings filed by the Respondents.

(ii) Rule is disposed off in the above terms.

(iii) Petition is disposed of accordingly with no Orders as to costs.