Quashed

Paresh Pai., v. Additional Collector - I, Panaji and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2019WP/1160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa set aside an order by the Collector that disposed of a review application. The Court held that the Additional Collector, who made the original order and filed a reply, must reconsider the review application on merits without being influenced by that reply.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order by Collector; directed Additional Collector to decide review application on merits.

Paresh Pai., Vs Additional Collector - I… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

vinita 1 WP1160/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2018.

¶4

Mr. Paresh Pai, Son of late Madeva Pai, Aged 49 years, Indian National, r/o House NO.B-10, Heritage Symphony Building, Opp. Syndicate Bank, Caranzalem, …....... Petitioner. Tiswadi, Goa.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Additional Collector -I, Collectorate of North Goa Tiswadi - Panaji Goa.

¶7

2 The Collector Collectorate of North Goa Tiswadi- Panaji …....... Respondents. Goa.

¶8

Mr. V. Amonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶9

Coram:- M. S. Sonak &

¶10

Prithviraj K. Chavan,JJ.

¶11

Date:- 15th January, 2019.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶13

Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing

¶14

for the petitioner and Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶15

Rule. With the consent of and at the request of

¶16

the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable

¶17

vinita 2 WP1160/2018

¶18

forthwith.

¶19

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6.11.2017 made by the Collector (Respondent no.2) rejecting the petitioner's application seeking review of order dated 10.10.2013 made by the Additional Collector (I) (Respondent no.1).

¶20

The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2013 made by the Additional Collector(I) claims to have instituted review petition on 7.11.2013. Mr. Amonkar points out that under Section 193 of the Goa Land Revenue Code 1968 (“said Code” for short) powers of review are vested in Revenue Officer. Application for review was required to be decided by the Additional Collector(I). However, application for review has been decided by the Collector (Respondent no.2) and that too after impleading Additional Collector(I) as a respondent and requiring Additional Collector(I) to file a reply to defend order dated 10.10.2013. Mr. Amonkar, submits that this is not a correct manner of disposing of the review application.

¶21

vinita 3 WP1160/2018

¶22

Ms. S. Linhares, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that power of grant or refuse conversion is basically vested in Collector. She submits that there are some delegations of power in favour of Additional Collector(I) as well. She submits that provision of the Code clearly permits such delegations. She, therefore, submits that there is no error in the Collector disposing of review application.

¶23

There is no difficulty in excepting Ms. S. Linhares contention as regards delegation of powers. However, if order is made by the Additional Collector(I) in pursuance of the delegation of power, then ordinarily, review application has to be disposed of by Additional Collector(I) unless, Additional Collector(I) is unavailable for deciding such review application. In fact, concept of review is that same officer is required to reconsider the order originally made. This is not a case where Additional Collector(I) was not available or otherwise not in a position to entertain the application for review. In fact, Additional Collector(I) has filed a reply before the Collector opposing the review.

¶24

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order

¶25

vinita 4 WP1160/2018

¶26

made by the Collector is required to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶27

Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶28

expressly states that the petitioner has no objection whatsoever, if the Additional Collector(I) now decides the review application. This statement is recorded, particularly

¶29

because Additional Collector(I) had earlier filed reply opposing review application.

¶30

Now that the impugned order is set aside, the Additional Collector(I) is directed to decide the petitioner's review application on its owner merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the proceedings/reply filed earlier. It is made clear that all contentions including the contention as to whether review was filed within prescribed period of limitation or not are kept open for adjudication by the Additional Collector(I). It is made clear that this court has not at all adjudicated to the merits of the review application and, therefore, it will be for the Additional Collector(I) to hear and decide the review application on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

vinita 5 WP1160/2018

¶32

Petitioner to appear before the Additional Collector(I) on 28.1.2019 at 3.30p.m and produce authenticated copy of this order. The Additional Collector(I)

¶33

may then fix a date for hearing the review application.

¶34

Rule is made absolute in the the aforesaid terms.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

All concerned to act on the duly authenticated

¶37

copy of this order.

¶38

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN,J. M. S. SONAK, J.

Paresh Pai., v. Additional Collector - I, Panaji and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Pai., v. Additional Collector - I, Panaji and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parole Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Vijaykumar Kashinath Fadke., Vs the Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Prachi Narayan Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Alnas Shamshuddin Ramjee and 3 Ors., Vs Sharmila Shah Muzawar and 9 Ors.

Priyaranjan Singh., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Women Police Station, Panaji and Anr.

Sushant S. Volvoikar and Anr., Vs Punjab National Bank, Ponda and Anr.

Peter Rock Samson Gonsalves., Vs Jose Manuel Fernandes and Anr.