Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Beatriz Almeida e D'Souza and her husband, applied to the Village Panchayat of Chodan-Madel for transfer of house tax based on a registered Will. The Panchayat failed to act, so they appealed to the Block Development Officer (BDO) under Section 201-A(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The BDO allowed the appeal on 18 July 2017. Respondent no.1, Singaraj Leo Singh, aggrieved by that order, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Panchayats under Section 201-A(2) along with an application for leave. The Deputy Director rejected the leave application on 20 August 2019, holding that respondent no.1 failed to show his rights were affected. Respondent no.1 then filed a revision before the District Judge under Section 201-B(1) of the Act. The petitioners objected to the maintainability of this revision, but the District Judge, by order dated 11 March 2020, allowed the revision and set aside the Deputy Director's order. The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the statutory scheme: Section 201-A provides an appeal to the BDO against certain orders of the Panchayat, and a revision to the Deputy Director against the BDO's appellate order. Section 201-B provides a revision to the District Court against an original order of the BDO (not an appellate order). Since the Deputy Director's order was passed in a revision under Section 201-A(2), it was not an original order of the BDO, and therefore no second revision lay to the District Court under Section 201-B(1). The Court held that the District Judge erred in entertaining the revision and set aside the impugned order, restoring the Deputy Director's order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Raj Act - Revision - Maintainability - Sections 201-A(2) and 201-B(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The question was whether a second revision lies to the District Court under Section 201-B(1) against an order of the Deputy Director passed in a revision under Section 201-A(2). The Court held that the scheme of the Act provides only one revision: under Section 201-A(2) to the Deputy Director against an appellate order of the BDO, and under Section 201-B(1) to the District Court against an original order of the BDO. Since the Deputy Director's order was passed in a revision, no further revision lies to the District Court. The District Judge's order was set aside. (Paras 2, 5-10, 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether against an order passed by the Deputy Director on a revision under Section 201-A(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, a second revision before the District Court under Section 201-B(1) would be maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 11 March 2020 passed by the District Judge, Panaji, and restored the order dated 20 August 2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Maintainability of revision
- Section 201-A(2) and Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Interpretation of statutory provisions
- No second revision
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 128
Writ Petition No. 366 of 2021
Mr. C. Fonseca for Petitioners, Mr. R. Gawas for Respondent No.1
Mrs. Beatriz Almeida e D'Souza and Mr. Nazareth D'Souza alias Nazare Lazario De Souza
Singaraj Leo Singh and The Village Panchayat Secretary/ Sarpanch Village Panchayat Chodan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Judge allowing a revision under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 11 March 2020 passed by the District Judge, Panaji, and to restore the order of the Deputy Director dated 20 August 2019.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the revision before the District Judge under Section 201-B was not maintainable against an order passed by the Deputy Director in a revision under Section 201-A(2).
Previous Decisions
The BDO allowed the petitioners' appeal on 18 July 2017. The Deputy Director rejected respondent no.1's revision on 20 August 2019. The District Judge allowed respondent no.1's revision on 11 March 2020.
Issues
Whether a second revision under Section 201-B(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is maintainable against an order passed by the Deputy Director under Section 201-A(2) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 201-B against an order of the Deputy Director passed in a revision under Section 201-A(2), as Section 201-B only provides for revision against an original order of the BDO.
Respondent no.1 argued that the revision was maintainable as the Deputy Director's order was an order under the Act and could be challenged under Section 201-B.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the scheme of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 201-A provides for an appeal to the BDO against certain orders of the Panchayat and a revision to the Deputy Director against the BDO's appellate order. Section 201-B provides for a revision to the District Court only against an original order of the BDO, not against an order passed by the Deputy Director in a revision. Therefore, no second revision lies to the District Court under Section 201-B(1) against an order passed by the Deputy Director under Section 201-A(2).
Judgment Excerpts
A short, however, an interesting question arises for consideration in the present proceedings, namely, whether against an order passed by the Deputy Director on a revision under Section 201-A(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, a second revision before the District Court under Section 201-B(1) would be maintainable.
The scheme of the Act is clear: Section 201-A provides for an appeal to the BDO and a revision to the Deputy Director. Section 201-B provides for a revision to the District Court against an original order of the BDO. There is no provision for a second revision.
Procedural History
On 2 March 2016, petitioners applied to the Village Panchayat for transfer of house tax. Panchayat failed to act. Petitioners appealed to BDO under Section 201-A(1); BDO allowed appeal on 18 July 2017. Respondent no.1 filed revision before Deputy Director under Section 201-A(2); Deputy Director rejected it on 20 August 2019. Respondent no.1 then filed revision before District Judge under Section 201-B(1); District Judge allowed it on 11 March 2020. Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 227 on 30 March 2021. High Court allowed petition on 28 September 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 201-A(1), Section 201-A(2), Section 201-B(1)
