AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No. 99/2008. That was an appeal filed by respondent no. 1, challenging the order dated 31.07.2008, passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Mapusa, directing the Mamlatdar of Bardez and Talathi of Bastora to carry out necessary changes in respect of land survey numbers, which are subject matter of dispute. This order was passed on the basis of the application for re-survey of the property, filed by the petitioners.
A perusal of para 8 of the impugned judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal clearly shows that it was necessary for the learned Deputy Collector to hold an enquiry and provide reasons, after hearing respondent no. 1 (appellant before the Administrative Tribunal). The learned Administrative Tribunal has further found that the impugned order was passed by the learned Deputy Collector without hearing the contentions raised on behalf of respondent no. 1. In para 9 of the impugned judgment, the learned Administrative Tribunal has found that the decision of the learned Deputy Collector is in breach of principles of natural justice.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it can be seen that if, according to the learned Administrative Tribunal, it was necessary for the Deputy Collector to hold an enquiry after giving hearing to respondent no. 1, the appropriate course would have been to remit the matter back to the learned Deputy Collector. The learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 states that in the event, this Court is inclined to remit the matter to the Deputy Collector, all the rival contentions including the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the application as filed by the petitioners, be left open.
In the circumstances, I find that the petition has to succeed partly. Hence, the following order is passed: O R D E R
(a) The petition is partly allowed.
(b) The impugned judgment and order, is hereby set aside.
(c) The application (being Case No. 16/03/2005/Resurvey/DC-II), filed by the petitioners, is restored back to the file of the learned Deputy Collector, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law.
(d) Rival contentions of the parties are left open.
(e) Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.