905 WP 515 2026 Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2026 SANDIP KUSHALI BORKER AND 3 ORS ... PETITIONERS Versus ANITA ANAND BORKAR ALIAS ANITA ANANT BORKAR ALIAS ANITA BORKAR AND 4 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Mr Preetam Talaulikar and Ms Sara Dessai, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr Vledson Braganza and Mr Pancham Phadte, Advocates for the Respondents. CORAM:- S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED :- 30th September, 2026 P.C.: 1. Petitioners impugn the order dated 27th April 2026 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No.8/2024 whereby order dated 24th January 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Margao in case No. SDO-II/SAL/MUND-APPL/01/2023/171 has been quashed and set aside and the matter was relegated back for reconsideration. 2. It is the contention of the Petitioners that they are owners and possessors of property bearing Survey No.380/1 admeasuring 30th September, 2026 2026:BHC-GOA:1948 905 WP 515 2026 350 square metres situated at Velim, Salcete Goa, since they had purchased the same under sale deed dated 30th June 1969. Respondents filed an application for declaration of mundkarial rights in respect of house structure situated in the suit property, along with an application for temporary injunction to restrain the Petitioners from demolishing the construction or narrowing access available to them. 3. On 20th December 2022, the Mamlatdar allowed application for temporary injunction restraining Petitioners from demolishing the construction. Aggrieved Petitioners approached the Deputy Collector, Margao, challenging the order of Mamlatdar. The Deputy Collector arrived at conclusion that Respondents' application before Mamlatdar was not maintainable in terms of Section 8-A of Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. Eventually not only allowed the Petitioners' appeal but also disposed of the original proceedings filed before the Mamlatdar. 4. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, Respondents filed Mundkar Revision Application before the Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by impugned order. 5. Perusal of impugned order suggests that the Tribunal was of the view that when the Sub-Divisional Officer was dealing with appeal against interim order, he could have restricted consideration 30th September, 2026 905 WP 515 2026 to the merits of said order and could not have disposed of the original proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar upon objection as to maintainability at the interim stage. In light of aforesaid observations, the matter was relegated back to the Deputy Collector for deciding the appeal on merits. 6. This Court finds that observations made by the Tribunal are in tune with legal position. The Deputy Collector while dealing with appeal against interim order could have simply considered validity and legality of interim injunction order passed by the Mamlatdar. There was no reason to dispose of original proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected. 7. Needless to state here that the Deputy Collector shall endeavour to decide the proceedings pending before him expeditiously and in any case, within a period of three months from today. Parties to cooperate. S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. 30th September, 2026 Signed by: TARI AMRUT NAGESH Designation: Private Secretary Date: 30/09/2026 18:19:02