JUDGMENT - A.S. AGUIAR, J.:---In this Revision Application, the applicants seek quashing of the order by the executing Court dated 27th July, 2000 dismissing their application for execution of the decree dated 29th July, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, Goa, whereby the suit of the applicants was decreed ex-parte. The decree in terms of prayers a, b and c of the plaint, directs the defendants to demolish all illegal extensions shown in Exh. P.W. 2-A and to restore the land beneath to the plaintiffs. Decree is also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from making further encroachments in the suit property beyond the plinth area of the residential house occupied by the defendants. By the said decree, the defendants are also ordered to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day from the date of the suit till the removal of all the encroachments. The executing Court vide its order dated 27th July, 2000 dismissed the execution application on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the trial Court passing the impugned order. 2. Reliance was placed by the executing Court on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Antonio Salvador Mesquita and others v. Pedro Carvalho and others)1, reported in 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (P.B.)185 holding that a structure which is situated within 300 sq. metres or 5 metres around the house in Panchayat area is part of the dwelling house and that such claim being disputed by the Bhatkar the issue has to be decided by the Mamlatdar. It is pointed out by he executing Court that admittedly the judgment debtors were declared mundkars way back in the year 1986 and were therefore entitled to the area of 300 sq. m. or 5 metres around the mundkarial house, being land in the Panchayat area under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act. 3. It was further pointed out that in the instant case, the judgment debtors had moved an application for purchase under section 16 of the Mundkars Act. The said application is under consideration and the land proposed to be purchased has also been demarcated. The decree is in respect of the unauthorised structures which have been put up by the respondents in the area falling within 5 metres around the house. In the view thereof, the said application has been dismissed. 4. The said application is under consideration and the land proposed to be purchased has also been demarcated. The decree is in respect of the unauthorised structures which have been put up by the respondents in the area falling within 5 metres around the house. In the view thereof, the said application has been dismissed. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicants, has contended that the decree ought not to have been dismissed, but stayed till the final disposal of the purchase application pending before the Mamlatdar. It is also contended that the applicants are entitled to mesne profits and also for an injunction restraining the respondents from putting up further encroachments. The execution application was only in respect of demolition of the unauthorised structures and for mesne profits. Since the alleged unauthorised structures fall within the area proposed to be purchased by the mundkars/respondents herein, the question of grant of mesne profits will not arise. So far as the injunction restraining the defendants from committing further encroachments thereof, it is always open to the applicants to take out appropriate proceedings. In view of the above position, the order of the executing Court dismissing the execution application for demolishing the encroachments falling within the area proposed to be purchased, does not require interference. 5. Hence Civil Revision Application rejected and disposed of. Civil Revision Application rejected. -----