AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the Petitioners sees leave to delete Article 226 from the cause title of the Writ Petition. Leave Granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Nasnodkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 by which, the Tribunal has granted time to the Petitioners who are Respondents before the Tribunal in Land Revision Appeal No. 29/2010 to file reply to the application for interim relief, subject to the Petitioners maintaining status quo in respect of the property in so far as the proposed construction is concerned, till the disposal of the application.
Alongwith Appeal No. 29/2010 filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Panaji under Land Revenue Code, the Respondent No. 2 also filed application for stay of the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector by which the Director of Settlement and Land Records was requested to correct the area in Form D of Chalta No. 97 of P. T. Sheet No. 78 of City Survey of Panaji. The Respondent No. 1 while granting time ordered the Petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of the proposed construction.
Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No. 1 while exercising jurisdiction who under provisions of Land Revenue Code could not have passed order of status quo and more particularly where no such relief was even sought by Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Nasnodkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 upon instructions fairly concedes that the impugned order, to the extent of granting status quo is unsustainable in law.
I find that the submissions made by Mr. Diniz and concession made by Mr. Nasnodkar, deserve to be accepted.
Firstly, the Respondent No. 2 had not even sought the interim relief which has been granted by the Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal could not have passed impugned order dated 15.12.2010 directing the Petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of the property.
Hence the order dated 15.12.2010 directing the Petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of the property is set aside.
The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.