Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 485 (BOM)

Pilerne Citizens Forum v. State of Goa

2013-02-28

F.M.REIS, U.V.BAKRE

body2013
JUDGMENT U.V. Bakre, J.-By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following reliefs : (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the case from the respondents and upon perusing the same, to quash and set aside the following :- (i) Conversion sanads dated 15/09/2009, 30/9/2009 and 6/10/2009 at Annexure-"P" colly granted by the Office of Collector, North Goa in favour of Furtados' Writ Survey Nos. 53/1-A-1. 53/1-A-2 and 53/1-A of Village Reis Magos; (ii) Plans approved by the Town and Country Planning a vide DB/19970/10/1497 dated 23/04/2010 at Annexure-"Q" colly in Sy. Nos. 53/1-A-1, 1-A and 1-A-2 of Village Reis Magos; (iii) Construction License granted by Reis Magos Panchayat vide No. VP/RM/F-Const/4/10-11/204 dated 19/05/2010 at Annexure-"Q" colly granted in favour of M/s. Supreme Realtors in Sy. Nos. 53/1-A-1, 1-A, 1-A- 2 of village Panchayat Reis Magos; (iv) Three Deeds of Sale dated 12/05/09, Deed of Sale dated 05/10/06, and Deed of Sale dated 31/03/08 and Deed of Sale dated 1/02/2007 at Annexure "M" Colly. (v) Order dated 06/09/2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Case No. 206/04 Settlement/Permission-Annexure "J"; (vi) Consent Decree dated 06/12/2004 passed by IInd Additional District Judge. North Goa at Panaji in Civil Suit No. 6/1978- Annexure "K": (vii) Judgment, Order and Decree dated 08/12/2005 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, "F" Court at Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 130/2005/F-Annexure "L". (B) For a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ. Order or Direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to treat this as a violation of Agricultural Tenancy Act. Goa Land use Registration Act and the Code of Communidade and to take appropriate action thereupon. (C) For such other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the societies Registration Act whereas petitioner No.2 is the Gauncar of the respondent No. 4-communidade. The petition pertains to the properties bearing survey No. 53/1, admeasuring 20,000 square meters or thereabout of village Reis Magos, and survey No. 76/1, admeasuring 74.000 square meters or thereabout of village Pilerne. originally belonging to the respondent No.4. The petition pertains to the properties bearing survey No. 53/1, admeasuring 20,000 square meters or thereabout of village Reis Magos, and survey No. 76/1, admeasuring 74.000 square meters or thereabout of village Pilerne. originally belonging to the respondent No.4. In the Form No. I and XIV of survey No. 76/1 of Pileme, the name of respondent No.4 has been recorded in the column of Occupant and the name of Dr. Albert Melo Furtado was recorded in the Tenant's column. The said Albert Melo Furtado is the predecessor-In-title of respondents No.9 to 14 and 19 to 21 collectively referred to as "Furtados". According to the petitioners at least upto the year 2004, only the name of respondent No. 4 was appearing in the occupant's column of survey No. 53/1 of Reis Magos but presently a certain other names also appear in the said column and there is no name in the tenant's column. 3. The petitioners have alleged that somewhere in the year 1978 or thereabouts, there was a proposal for allotment of portion of the property surveyed under Nos. 53/1 of Reis Magos and 76/1 of Pilerne in favour of Miss Ana J. Soares and some others by the respondent No.4. Dr. Alberto Melo Furtado instituted a Civil Suit No. 6/1978 in the Court of Additional District Judge-II. North Goa, at Panaji, in respect of the Cashew Garden bearing survey Nos. 53/1 of Reis Magos and 76/1 of Pileme, belonging to respondent No.4. claiming to be b tenant (deemed purchaser) of the same. Issues No. 2 and 3 framed in the said Suit related to the question whether or not. Dr. Alberto Melo Furtado was a tenant and consequently deemed purchaser of the said properties. By judgment and decree dated 3/6/1995, the Additional District Judge, Panaji dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. By order dated 25/3/1998, in First Appeal No. 55/1995, the learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the decree of the Additional District Judge and remanded the matter to the District Judge with a direction to refer the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar, which was accordingly done. The said Civil Suit No. 6/1978 was thereafter adjourned sine die until the adjudication of issue of tenancy by the Mamlatdar. 4. In the mean time, the respondent No. 4 applied to the Administrative Tribunal, Goa. The said Civil Suit No. 6/1978 was thereafter adjourned sine die until the adjudication of issue of tenancy by the Mamlatdar. 4. In the mean time, the respondent No. 4 applied to the Administrative Tribunal, Goa. at Panaji for permission to compromise the said Civil Suit No. 6/1978. The Administrative Tribunal, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 154 read with Article 350 of the Code of Communidades, vide order dated 6/9/2004 granted the permission for such compromise. Armed with the said order, during the pendency of adjudication of the issue of tenancy referred to the Mamlatdar. Furtados and the respondent No. 4 filed consent terms in Civil Suit No. 6/1978 and obtained consent decree dated 06/12/2004. As per the consent decree, the property admeasuring 12,800 square metres from out of Survey No. 53/1 of Reis Magos and property admeasuring 34,200 square meters, out of survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne came to be owned and possessed by Furtados and the balance portion came to be owned and possessed by respondent No.4. Thereafter, Furtados instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 130/2005/F in the Court of Civil Judge. Junior Division, at Mapusa, for deletion of the name of Dr. Alberto Melo Furtado appearing in the tenant's column of Form No. 1 and XIV of survey No. 76/1 of Village Pilerne. which Suit was allowed by Judgment and Decree dated 08/12/2005. Changes were effected in the Form No. I & XIV of survey Nos. 53/1 and 76/1 and the names of Furtados were recorded in Occupant's Column with respect to an area of 12,800 square metres of survey No. 53/1 and with respect to area of 34,200 square metres of survey No. 76/1. Furtados partitioned the property bearing survey No. 53/1 of Reis Magos and part of the property now bears survey Nos. 53/1-A. 53/1-A-1, and a 53/1-A-2 of Village Rets Magos. Thereafter, Furtados sold part of the said properties to the respondents No. 14 to 17. 5. According to the petitioners, Regular Civil suit No. 130/05/F was a collusive suit. The petitioners have expressed a possibility that furtados and respondent No.4. with a view to fraudulently facilitate alienation of the Communidade properties and overreach the provisions of the Code of Communidades, the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, embarked upon a conspiracy. According to the petitioners, Regular Civil suit No. 130/05/F was a collusive suit. The petitioners have expressed a possibility that furtados and respondent No.4. with a view to fraudulently facilitate alienation of the Communidade properties and overreach the provisions of the Code of Communidades, the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, embarked upon a conspiracy. The petitioners state that in this fraudulent and collusive manner, Furtados acquired ownership and possessory rights in respect of the said properties. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 did not get a single paisa from Furtados but Furtados earned more than rupees eight crores by selling plots from the said property. 6. Furtados obtained conversion sanads dated 15/9/2009 for an area of 6200 square metres of land from survey No. 53/1-A-1; 30/9/2009 for an area of 3030 square metres from survey No. 53/1A-2: and 06/10/2009 in respect of portion of the land from survey No. 53/1-A. The respondents No. 9 and 10 obtained sanad dated 15/2/2009 for an area of 6200 square metres from survey No. 53/1- A-1 of Reis Magos. The respondent No. 11 and her late husband Servulo obtained sanad dated 30/9/2009 for an area of 3030 square metres from survey No. 53/1-A-2 of Reis Magos. The respondents No. 12 and 13 also obtained sanad dated 6/10/2009 for an area of 3050 square metres from survey No. 53/1-A,' The respondent No. 14 proceeded to obtain permissions from respondent No. 18 for setting up a Project Comprising several Buildings of Apartments and Shops in the said property surveyed under 53/1-A. It is the contention of the petitioners that such conversion and permissions could not have been granted as the said property cannot be used for any other purpose than agriculture. The petitioners say that respondent No. 14 is carrying out construction in the said property hearing survey Nos. 53/1-A, 1-A-1 and 1-A-2 of village Reis Magus. According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 15, 16 and 17 have not obtained any conversion sanads or permissions for construction. 7. The petitioners say that respondent No. 14 is carrying out construction in the said property hearing survey Nos. 53/1-A, 1-A-1 and 1-A-2 of village Reis Magus. According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 15, 16 and 17 have not obtained any conversion sanads or permissions for construction. 7. The petitioners have alleged that upon consideration of almost similar fact situation concerning the same Communidade of Pilerne i.e. respondent No.4, this Court in Writ Petition No. 294 of 2008 and suo moto Writ Petition No. 1 of 2008 has ruled that such fraudulent alienations are in breach of the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964; the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991: as also the Code of Communidades and are not sustainable. Therefore, the petitioners submit that alienations in respect of the properties which are subject matter of the conversion sanads, mentioned in this petition are required to be struck down: 8. Denying various allegations of the petitioners which are contrary a to their case, the respondents No.4; 9, to 13 & 19 to 21; 14; 15: and 16, respectively, have filed their affidavits-in-reply. Their main objections are as follows :- The petition is barred by inordinate delay and latches, about which there is no explanation: constructions have already been undertaken in the said property by incurring huge expenditure in crores of rupees and third party rights have been created: plots have been already allotted by the respondent No. 4 to various persons who have constructed their houses: the petitioners are not bona fide litigants and have filed the petition with ulterior motives; there are various disputed questions of fact involved in the petition: there is suppression of material facts; the petitioners have alternate remedies under the Code of Communidades. 9. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the affidavits-in- reply of respondents No. 14, 15 and 16. 10. Mr. Pereira, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that during the pendency of the issue of tenancy before the competent authority, the application was made before the Administrative Tribunal for permission to compromise and in terms of order dated 06/09/1994 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, consent terms were filed in Civil Suit No. 6/1978 and the consent decree dated 06/12/2004 came to be filed in the said suit. According to the learned counsel, the reference made to the Mamlatdar was not decided. According to the learned counsel, the reference made to the Mamlatdar was not decided. He submitted that the claim of tenancy by Furtados was based on the grant made by the respondent No. 4 under Article 317 of the Code of Communidades and that at least insofar as Survey No. 76/1, is concerned, there was presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code, in respect of the tenancy. He therefore contended that the order dated 06/09/2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal: Consent Decree dated 06/12/2004 in Civil Suit No. 6/1978: Decree dated 08/12/2005 in Civil Suit No. 130/2005; consequent deletion of the names of Furtados from the tenant's column: changes effected in the Forms No. I and XIV; the conversion sanads: plans approved by the Town and Country Planning: construction licences: and the sale deeds, etc., in respect of the said properties are all illegal and liable to be set aside. He contended that no money was paid to the Communidade by Furtados and according to him the above entire exercise is fraudulent and is null and void. The learned counsel submitted that in terms of Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 which carne into force from 02/11/1990. no land vested in agricultural tenant could be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture and anything done after that date would be covered by Judgment dated 5/8/2010 passed in W. P. No. 294 of 2008 and suo motu W.P. No. 1 of 2008 (Milroc's case, for short). He further contended that prior to 1974, tenants could surrender tenancy but after that date the tenants have no right to surrender the tenancy as they a became deemed purchasers and that the petitioners are concerned with whatever that has happened thereafter. He, therefore, argued that the petition ought to be allowed. 11. Mr. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 contended that prayers (v) and (vi) in the petition are main prayers in the petition and that the other prayers follow them. He pointed out that the orders mentioned in the said prayers are of 2004 but the petition to quash them has been filed in the year 2011. Mr. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 contended that prayers (v) and (vi) in the petition are main prayers in the petition and that the other prayers follow them. He pointed out that the orders mentioned in the said prayers are of 2004 but the petition to quash them has been filed in the year 2011. He submitted that during the period from 1997 to 2009, about 42 plots from the area of 39,800 square metres retained by the communidade were allotted to different persons who are its components to build houses and hence there is gross delay/laches. He pointed out that in Milroc's case, there was surrender of tenancy whereas in the present case there is no such thing. He further submitted that under the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 land has to first vest in the tenant. He argued that in the present case, there was no vesting of land in the person claiming to be tenant. According to the learned Counsel, entire procedure was duly followed and there was a simple claim of tenancy made by Furtados but there c were no conclusive documents of tenancy. He pointed out that as per consent terms, the reference which was made to the Mamlatdar withdrawn. 12. Mr. Dessai. learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.9. 10, 11, 12(a to c), 13, 20 and 21 contended that Furtados categorized their claim in the said suit, in the form of tenancy only to establish their possession from 1959 and by way of compromise they only changed their capacity and there was no fraud. He submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondent No.4 in the said Civil Suit No. 6/1978, and in the cross-examination d of the plaintiff, the claim of tenancy was specifically denied. He further submitted that the petitioners only assume that there is tenancy and that there is fraud, though there is no document of tenancy and further though there is no proof of the nature of the land. He also contended that the petition is hit by inordinate delay and laches met non-joinder of parties. According to him, his parties have sold the properties long back. 13. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 15 contended that fraud is a mixed question of fact and law. He also contended that the petition is hit by inordinate delay and laches met non-joinder of parties. According to him, his parties have sold the properties long back. 13. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 15 contended that fraud is a mixed question of fact and law. He argued that in the affidavit of respondent No. 15, it is mentioned that the land is rocky land which fact has not been denied by the petitioners. According to him, mere probability of tenancy cannot be a basis of Writ Petition. Learned Counsel submitted that the sale transaction was made by the respondent No. 15 by registered sale deed dated 05/10/2006 before which an advertisement inviting objections from public was published in the Navhind Times dated 16/06/2006. He thus contended that the petitioners had knowledge and that there is gross delay and laches. 14. Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 14 relied upon the decision dated 02/02/2011 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 53/2011 and common judgment dated 29/03/2012 in Writ Petitions No. 506, 507 and 577 of 2009 and 657/2011. He submitted that similar claims were raised in those petitions but the said petitions were all dismissed. Learned counsel produced before us a copy of order dated 24/8/2012 in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 19595-19598. against the judgment and order dated b 29/03/2012 of this Court in W. P. No. 577/09. W. P. No. 506/2011, W.P. No. 557/2011 and W. P. No. 657/2011, by which the Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. He also contended that insofar as the survey No. 53/1 is concerned, there was no entry in the tenant's column of Form No. I and XIV. He also pointed out that construction activities had started long back and lot of money was put in and buildings have come up to the third Hoor in the properly purchased by respondent No. 14. 15. Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 16 adopted the submissions made by learned Counsel for above respondents. 16. We have carefully gone through the petition. affidavits-in-reply, affidavit-in-rejoinder and various documents and citations relied upon by the parties. 17. Let us first consider the relevant provisions of law. Section 2(13) of the Goa. 15. Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 16 adopted the submissions made by learned Counsel for above respondents. 16. We have carefully gone through the petition. affidavits-in-reply, affidavit-in-rejoinder and various documents and citations relied upon by the parties. 17. Let us first consider the relevant provisions of law. Section 2(13) of the Goa. Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Tenancy Act, for short) defines lease to mean a transfer of a right to enjoy land, made orally or in writing, for a specified, or unspecified period, and in consideration of rent. Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, inter alia. lays down that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person on or after the 1st of July, 1962 but before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be a tenant, etc. Section 7 of the Tenancy Act gives jurisdiction to the Mamlatdar to decide question whether any person is or was tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act. Section 7A gives power to the Mamlatdar to decide whether any land is or is not used for agricultural purposes. Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act lays down that no Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Tenancy Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar. By virtue of Section 55 of the Tenancy Act, a communidade is a 'person' for the purposes of the Tenancy Act. 18. Hence, there is no doubt that there can be agricultural tenancy in respect of Communidade properties provided the lease is in accordance with the Code of Communidade and as such the exclusive jurisdiction, to decide the question as to whether any person a is or was a tenant or was a deemed tenant under the Tenancy Act, is conferred on the Mamlatdar. 19. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab v. Rajaram v. Parab & Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 183 . It is now settled that the Mamlatdar, in the exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant. It is now settled that the Mamlatdar, in the exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant. In terms of Section 18A of the Tenancy Act, on tillers' day, every tenant became a deemed purchaser of the land held by him as tenant. 20. Section 54(1) of the Tenancy Act provides that it shall be lawful for the Government to take all measures for the survey, classification and assessment of all lands, for the preparation and maintenance of land records, including the record of rights and maps and for all other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf. Section 61(1) of the Tenancy Act empowers the Government to make rules generally to carry out the purposes of this Act. Accordingly, the Government made the Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue, Survey and record of rights) Rules 1967. These rules prescribe the procedure for preparing the record of rights for the purposes of Tenancy Act. Rule 48 of the said Rules provides that an entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in. the register of mutation shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore, Rule 51 provides that all survey operations at the commencement under any law for the time being in force, or any rule, order or direction of the Government, and either completed or continuing at the commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been commenced, completed or to be continuing under the provisions of these rules. By virtue of the (amendment) Rule, 2006. Notification No. 1/1/93-RD dated 9/11/2006 published in the Official Gazette. Series No. 32 (Extraordinary) dated 9/11/2006, which came into force from 9/11/2006, the following proviso has been inserted in Rule 51 namely: "provided that all surveys made and maintained and record of rights prepared and prescribed under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act 9 of 1960) and the rules framed thereunder shall be deemed to be survey made and maintained under the record of rights prepared and prescribed under the provisions of these rules." 21. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act which came into force on 2nd November, 1990 reads thus : "Regulation of Use of Land.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Goa. Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act. 1974(Act 21 of 1975) or in any plan or scheme made there under or in the Goa Land Revenue Code. 1968 (Act 9 of 1969), no land which is vested in a tenant under the provision of the Goa. Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act. 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) shall be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture." 22. The legal effect of above Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act is that once there is vesting of land under Section 18A of the Tenancy Act, land of the tenant cannot be used for purpose other than agriculture and even under the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and the Land Revenue Code, change of user cannot be allowed. Change of user would be allowed only when there is vesting of the land as a b consequence of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. 23. Communidades are governed by the Legislative Diploma No. 2070 (Code of Communidades). Under the said Code, there is prescribed procedure for leases of lands and auction of the yearly yield. Communidades cannot be expected to create lease of their land orally. Communidades have to maintain registers and accounts pertaining to leased lands. No doubt, in Civil Suit No. 6/1978. Dr. Alberto Furtado had claimed to be the tenant of land bearing survey No. 53/1 of Reis Magos and 76/1 of Pilerne, and even in his deposition, in that Suit, he had stated so. However, that does not mean that indisputably Furtados were agricultural tenants of that land. The respondent No. 4, in its written statement, filed in the said Civil suit No. 6/1978, had denied the same. The deposition of Dr. Furtado (PW.1), the plaintiff of said Suit No. 6/1978, reveals that according to him, they had planted cashew trees in the said property as per the terms and conditions laid down in the lease agreement. In his cross- examination, PW.1 has clearly stated that in the said terms and conditions it was clearly stipulated that he had right only to the fruits. In his cross- examination, PW.1 has clearly stated that in the said terms and conditions it was clearly stipulated that he had right only to the fruits. A suggestion has been put to him that he was not a tenant of the suit property and was only a purchaser of the yearly yield, for three years. No lease agreement was produced by the plaintiff, in the said Civil Suit No. 6/1978. The petitioners have also not produced any lease agreement, in favour of Furtados, in respect of the said properties. Merely having an agreement to pluck the fruits of the trees of the respondent No. 4 cannot be termed to be a lease in terms of the Tenancy Act. Thus, the question of alleged lease/grant of land is a disputed fact, which will have to be investigated in order to give relief to the petitioners. 24. Insofar as survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village is concerned, the land admeasures about 74.000 square "metres and the name of the Communidade was appearing in the occupant's column of Form No. I and XIV whereas the name of Dr. Alberto Melo furtado was appearing in the tenant's column of the Form No. I and XIV. The said Form No. I and XIV was prepared under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968. There is presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights and register of mutations, under Section 105 of the Land revenue Code, which presumption is rebuttable. But in respect of the agricultural tenants, under the Tenancy Act, a separate Index of lands a had to be prepared under the Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue Survey and Record of rights) Rules, 1967 and under Rule 48 of the said Rules there is similar presumption about the correctness of the entries in record of rights and register of mutations, prepared under the said Rules. The Form No. I & XIV in respect of survey No. 76/1 was not prepared under the said Agricultural Tenancy Rules. Based on the Consent Decree dated 6/12/2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 6/1978 and judgment, order and decree dated 8/12/2005 in R.C.S. No. 130/2005, changes were already effected in the said Form No. I & XIV of said survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village and the name of Dr. Alberto Furtado was deleted from the tenant's column. Based on the Consent Decree dated 6/12/2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 6/1978 and judgment, order and decree dated 8/12/2005 in R.C.S. No. 130/2005, changes were already effected in the said Form No. I & XIV of said survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village and the name of Dr. Alberto Furtado was deleted from the tenant's column. By virtue of the (Amendment) Rules, 2006, a proviso came to be added to Rule 51 of the said Agricultural Tenancy Rules, by which amendment, all surveys made and maintained and the record of rights prepared and prescribed under the Goa Land Revenue Code. 1968 (Act 9 of 1969) and the Rules framed there under are deemed to be made and maintained under the record of rights prepared and prescribed under the provisions of the said Rules. But this amendment came into force on 09/11/2006. Thus, there is dispute whether prior to 09/11/2006, the entry in Form No. I & XIV. prepared under the Land Revenue Code, had, any presumptive value. 25. Be that as it may, in terms of Section 18A of the Tenancy Act. the tenants and not the persons merely claiming to be tenants became deemed purchasers. Admittedly, in respect of survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village, neither any person was declared to be tenant or deemed purchaser nor any purchase certificate was granted to any person, under the Tenancy Act. As is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act would be applicable only to the tenants in whom the land is vested under the d Tenancy Act and not to the persons who merely claimed to be tenants. 26. Therefore, the question of tenancy being a seriously disputed question, further questions regarding the legality of the permission granted by the Administrative Tribunal for compromise of Civil Suit No. 6/1978. Consent Decree passed in that Suit; Judgment and Decree passed in Civil Suit No. 130/2005; Sales made by Furtados; grants of lands made by respondent No.4; conversions of land granted by the competent authority; approvals, of plans granted by competent authority; construction licences granted by competent authority, rights created in third parties, etc. are all seriously disputed questions, which cannot be gone into, in writ jurisdiction. The Decrees in the said Civil Suits cannot be termed as void ab-initio. are all seriously disputed questions, which cannot be gone into, in writ jurisdiction. The Decrees in the said Civil Suits cannot be termed as void ab-initio. If the said Decrees are illegal or erroneous, they will have to be set aside in appropriate proceedings like Civil Suits filed for that purpose. Fraud which has been alleged will have to be proved on merits, which would require adducing of elaborate evidence by all parties concerned. 27. Insofar as the land under survey No. 53/1 admeasuring about 20,000 square meters. situated in the Village Reis Magos, is concerned, the name of respondent No.4 was appearing in the occupant's column. Admittedly, no name was appearing at any time in the column of tenant in the Form No. I and XIV, with respect to said survey No. 53/1. Therefore, there can be no illegality at least insofar as this land is concerned. 28. The permission given by the Administrative tribunal is of September 2004. Consent Decree in Civil Suit No. 6/1978 is of December 2004. Decree in Civil Suit No. 130/2005 is of December, 2005. After purchasing the property bearing survey Nos. 53/1-A. 53/1-A-1 and 53/1-A-2, from Furtados, in the year 2009, the respondent No. 14 got approved the sub-division layout. Conversion sanads, approvals from the Town and country Planning Department. Construction licence from the village panchayat, permission from P.W.D., NOC from Health Department, etc., were all obtained. Respondent No. 14 has spent a lot of money, in crores, on the purchase of land, completion of formalities before development and construction of residential-cum-commercial complex, on the said land. The respondent No. 14 has produced the said approvals, conversion sanads, construction licence, advertisements. summary of expenses, etc. The respondent No. 14 has produced photographs of the completed works along with affidavit dated 8/2/2012 and further along with additional affidavit dated 24/8/2012. The respondent No. 15 had purchased land bearing survey No. 76/1-B-B1 from respondents No.9 and 10 by sale deed of the year 2006, for huge amount of Rs. 2+ crores and prior to the purchase they had published advertisement in local news paper inviting objections. The respondent No. 16 purchased the land from survey No. 76/1-B-2 by sale deed of the year 2008 for Rs. 2.10 crores. from respondents No 9 and 10. 2+ crores and prior to the purchase they had published advertisement in local news paper inviting objections. The respondent No. 16 purchased the land from survey No. 76/1-B-2 by sale deed of the year 2008 for Rs. 2.10 crores. from respondents No 9 and 10. In respect of the portion of survey No. 76/1 admeasuring 39,800 square meters retained by respondent No. 4-Communidade, plots were made and 42 plots have been allotted to various persons between the period from November, 1997 to October, 2009. under the provisions of the Code of communidades. The allottees of most of the above said plots have constructed residential houses and are residing there. The respondent No. 14 has made an allegation that the present petition has been filed at the instance of one Shri Gaurish Pereira who was seeking access through survey No. 53/1-A to his property under survey No. 54/1 of Village Reis Magos. According to respondent No. 14. said Gaurish had approached it for the access and respondent No. 14 had rejected the same due to which the said Shri Gaurish Pereira is interested in blocking the development in survey No. 53/1-A and therefore the petition is not bona fide. Even, if we do not take the above allegation into account. then also the petition cannot succeed. The petition has been filed on 13/4/2011. Thus, the same is filed after gross delay/latches, which has not been satisfactorily explained. It is well settled that inordinate delay for filing the writ petition without a any reasonable explanation itself can be a ground to dismiss the same. 29. Third party rights have already been created in the residential cum-commercial complex, constructed by the respondent No. 14 in the property under survey Nos. 53/1-A, 53/1-A-1 and 53/1-A-2 at Reis Magos. The persons in whom such third party rights have been created are not parties to this writ petition. The said 42 allottees of plots granted by respondent No. 4 are also not parties to the present writ petition. Mutations in survey record have been carried out. It is well settled that when other interests have came into being and persons having these interests are not parties, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised. 30. Mutations in survey record have been carried out. It is well settled that when other interests have came into being and persons having these interests are not parties, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised. 30. In Milroc's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, inter alia, this Court held that where the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, the decree or order passed by such Court, will be without jurisdiction, non-est and void ab-initio. It was further held that a defect of jurisdiction of the Court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass a decree or make an order and such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and the decree or order passed by a Court or authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity and validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage even in execution or collateral proceedings. The principles laid down in the above citation are not disputed. The above citation does not help the present petitioners. In the case supra, this Court had proceeded on the basis of undisputed factual position and the questions of fact as noted by us in the present case were not involved in that case. The decision in Milroc's case (supra), is easily distinguishable. The respondents No.7 to 17 therein were the legal representatives of one Krishna Hadfadkar who was declared as a deemed purchaser under the provisions of d Section 18A of the Tenancy Act and notice under Section 18C was issued by the Mamlatdar and was published in the Government Gazette. Purchase price was fixed by the Mamlatdar and consequently a purchase certificate was also issued to said Hadfadkar. In the present case except the entry in Form No. I & XIV of survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village, in the tenant’s column, practically there is nothing to support alleged tenancy of Dr. Furtado. 'The petitioners cannot rely upon the above decision unless they are successful in proving their allegations as set out in the petition by approaching competent forums or Courts. 31. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present writ petition which stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Courts if advised in accordance with law. 31. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present writ petition which stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Courts if advised in accordance with law. In case such proceedings are filed, all contentions of the parties are kept open. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Writ petition which stands dismissed.