2006 (9) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the inventory, half of the estate was allotted to Dom Jose Joaquim de Noronha and the other half to their children. On or about 17/18.04.1929, Dom Jose Joaquim de Noronha bequeathed his disposable quota of properties allotted to him in the inventory upon the death of Filomena. He died on 20.04.1929. Upon his death, his disposable quota of properties was purportedly described as southern lot. Allegedly, the terms of the Will were later altered on 20.06.1930. The legality of such a course of action, however, is in dispute. On or about 24.12.1964, the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder came into force. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act, which are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....establish his title to the property in a Civil Court, or (c) if there is any doubt with respect to the title of the applicant to the property, refer him to a Civil Court for the determination of his title : Provided that no order for the restoration of any evacuee property shall be made under this sub-section unless provision has been made in the prescribed manner for the recovery of any amount due to the Custodian in respect of the property or the management thereof. (3) Upon the restoration of the property to the evacuee or to the heir, as the case may be, the Custodian shall stand absolved of all responsibilities in respect of the property, so restored, but such restoration shall not prejudice the rights, if an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1 from transferring or alienating any part of the suit properties, where-against an appeal has been filed, which is said to be still pending. Respondent No.1, however, filed an application for review of the order before Respondent No.3. In the said proceeding an objection was filed by the Appellant herein. The said objection was rejected. A suit was filed by the Appellant that the application filed by Respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the said order dated 16.09.1997 by Respondent No.3 be declared as null and void. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal there- against is said to be pending. Respondent No.3 by reason of an order dated 21.04.1999, however, reviewed his earlier order dated 16.09.1997, declaring that the entire alleg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on to direct restoration of property in terms of Section 15 of the Act and as such this Court should not pass any order which would come in the way of the said authority from exercising his statutory power. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment, inter alia, opined that the order dated 21.04.1999 passed by Respondent No.3 was not vitiated in law as the application filed by the said Respondent which came to be rejected by an order dated 16.09.1997, had not been determined as was required under Section 15 of the Act, directing : " if the legal representatives of Ricardina apply for hearing of the said application on merits within a period of four weeks by taking steps to comply with the requirements of Rule 14(2) and (3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to go into the said question. The statutory scheme under the said Act clearly shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa. The statute may not contain any explicit provision to hear a third party but it is not excluded either. The principle of natural justice as well as that of pro interesse suo would be applicable in such a situation. It has not been disputed that the Civil Court would be the final authority in this behalf. If that is so, the Administrator would be bound by the judgment of the Civil Court. We have furthermore noticed hereinbefore that the Appellant had not been heard before the Custodian. If he is claiming title over the property, ....