Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1780 (BOM)

Minguel Francisco v. Office Of Mamlatdar

2021-12-17

M.S.JAWALKAR, REVATI MOHITE DERE

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the only substantive relief sought by the petitioners is as under: "This Hon'ble Court, be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other Writ or Order, directing the Respondent to expedite the Mutation Proceedings bearing Mut. No. 8579, 8577, 8578/Sanvordem, and also to complete the said pending Mutation proceedings in a time bound manner;" 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a suit ie. Civil Suit No. 165/2004 in the Court of District Judge, South Goa, Margao for declaration that they were the owners of the suit property. She submits that after considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge, decreed the said suit vide Judgment and Order dtd. 31/1/2007 in favour of the petitioners and declared that the petitioners were the owners in possession of the suit property i.e. the land under Survey No. 30/0 and that they were entitled for correction of the survey records in respect of the suit property and as such, granted permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their employees, officers, etc. from interfering with the said property in any manner. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the respondents, belatedly filed an appeal in the High Court, challenging the said decree, alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay of 772 days in filing the first appeal. The said misc. civil application, seeking condonation of delay, was rejected by this Court vide order dtd. 4/12/2009, which was ultimately confirmed by the Apex Court in 2014. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mutation proceedings are pending since 2010 and that, on some pretext or the other, the same are adjourned. She submits that in fact, the matter was posted for final orders in 2014, however, no orders were passed since 2014 till date. 6. Considering that the only relief sought in the petition is a direction to the respondents to expedite the mutation proceedings, as stated aforesaid in the prayer clause and the fact that the same have been pending since 2010, it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct the Mamlatdar/Certifying Officer-respondent No. 1 to complete the mutation proceedings as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate to also communicate this order to the respondent No. 1, so as to enable him to complete the same expeditiously. 8. Petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 9. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.