Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, four individuals, challenged the order of the Land Revenue Tribunal dated 19/1/2022, which dismissed their Land Revenue Appeal No.48/2021 as not maintainable. The dispute arose from a mutation application filed by Respondents No.1 and 2 before the Joint Mamlatdar-I, Bicholim Taluka, under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968. The Joint Mamlatdar dismissed the application on 21/9/2021. Respondents No.1 and 2 appealed to the Deputy Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer, Bicholim, who allowed the appeal on 2/11/2021. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a second appeal before the Land Revenue Tribunal, which held that no second appeal was maintainable under the Code and dismissed the appeal. The High Court examined the provisions of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, particularly Sections 233 and 234. The Court noted that Section 233 provides for an appeal to the Deputy Collector against orders of the Mamlatdar, and Section 234 provides for a second appeal to the Tribunal against orders of the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal had erroneously held that Section 234 only provides for revision and not a second appeal. The High Court clarified that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be liberally construed. The absence of a specific provision for second appeal does not bar it if the statute contemplates multiple tiers. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Maintainability of Second Appeal - Section 234, Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The issue was whether a second appeal lies against an order of the Deputy Collector passed under Section 233 of the Code. The Tribunal had held that no second appeal is maintainable as Section 234 only provides for revision. The High Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be liberally construed; the absence of a specific provision for second appeal does not bar it if the statute contemplates multiple tiers. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second appeal under Section 234 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 is maintainable against an order passed by the Deputy Collector in an appeal under Section 233 of the said Code.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 19/1/2022, and directed the Tribunal to hear Land Revenue Appeal No.48/2021 on its merits. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Maintainability of second appeal under Goa Land Revenue Code
- 1968
- Interpretation of Section 234 of Goa Land Revenue Code
- Right of appeal is a substantive right
- Liberal interpretation of remedial statutes
