Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from three writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, filed by five private limited companies as petitioners against the legal heirs of Lourenco Fernandes. The petitioners challenged orders of the Administrative Tribunal condoning a delay of 4 years and 194 days, granting leave to appeal, and staying the operation of a conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006 issued in their favour. The dispute concerned land conversion under the Land Revenue Code, 1968, and the core question was whether the respondents had shown sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.
The conversion sanad was obtained by the petitioners on 2nd June 2006. Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009 was later instituted before the Court of District Judge-III, Panaji, Goa, concerning the same property. In that suit, the petitioners filed a written statement on 12th June 2009, specifically disclosing in paragraphs 29 and 30 that they had obtained the conversion sanad on payment of conversion fees amounting to Rs.13,28,000 and had annexed a copy of the sanad. The contesting respondents claimed they were old, sick, illiterate, and unaware of the sanad until the first week of February 2011, when their advocate obtained a copy through discreet inquiries. On 14th February 2011, they applied for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed orders on 19th March 2012 granting leave, 25th July 2012 condoning delay, and 4th July 2013 staying the sanad. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay, whether leave and stay orders were proper, and whether the respondents' lack of knowledge plea could stand in light of the earlier written statement. The petitioners argued that the respondents had filed multiple proceedings regarding the same property and could not claim ignorance due to age or illiteracy; the written statement in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009 had expressly mentioned the sanad and attached a copy. The respondents contended that they should not suffer for their advocate's fault and that their lack of knowledge was genuine.
The court examined the averments in the condonation application and the rejoinder, focusing on the point of knowledge. It noted that the first question for determination was whether sufficient cause had been shown for the condonation. The petitioners relied heavily on the written statement filed in 2009 to demonstrate prior knowledge. The excerpt of the judgment ends before the final order, so the court's ultimate decision is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The court considered whether the contesting respondents had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 4 years and 194 days in filing an appeal against conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006. The respondents pleaded old age, sickness, illiteracy, and lack of knowledge until February 2011, alleging fraud in procurement of sanad. The court examined these averments alongside prior litigation to determine credibility. (Paras 6-9)
B) Limitation - Knowledge of Impugned Order - Disclosure in Court Pleadings - Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Petitioners argued that the respondents had earlier knowledge of conversion sanad through written statement filed in Civil Suit No.3 of 2009, where paragraphs 29 and 30 specifically mentioned obtaining sanad on payment of Rs.13,28,000 and annexed a copy, filed on 12th June 2009. This disclosure was material to assess sufficient cause. (Paras 10-12)
C) Administrative Law - Tribunal's Discretionary Orders - Leave and Stay - Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The High Court also examined challenge to Tribunal's order dated 19th March 2012 granting leave to appeal and order dated 4th July 2013 staying operation of conversion sanad, these being ancillary to validity of condonation. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the contesting respondents had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 4 years and 194 days in instituting an appeal against the conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006; whether the Tribunal was justified in granting leave and stay; whether respondents' lack of knowledge plea was credible given prior civil suit pleadings
Law Points
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause
- knowledge of impugned order material
- plea of lack of awareness can be rebutted by court records
- stay of conversion sanad dependent on valid appeal
- Tribunal's discretion under Land Revenue Code
- 1968
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 88
Writ Petition No. 491 of 2013 with Writ Petition No. 510 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 76 of 2014
Mr. V. A. Lawande, Mr. P. Redkar, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar (Senior Advocate), Ms. S. Kenny
M/s Sycamore Growmore Pvt. Ltd., M/s Organ Realty Pvt. Ltd., M/s Conifer Textiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s Walf lower Agri Tech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Pyramid Sec. & Cons. Pvt. Ltd. (all represented by power of attorney Shri Jayant E. Jadhav)
Mr. Lourenco Fernandes (since deceased) through legal heirs: Mr. Santano Fernandes, Mrs. Joaquinha Fernandes, Mr. Hermino Fernandes, Mrs. Carmina Fernandes, Mr. Alexander Fernandes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of the Administrative Tribunal condoning delay, granting leave, and staying operation of conversion sanad.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal's orders dated 19th March 2012 (grant of leave), 25th July 2012 (condonation of delay), and 4th July 2013 (stay of conversion sanad).
Filing Reason
The Administrative Tribunal condoned delay of 4 years and 194 days and allowed appeal proceedings against conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006 issued in favour of the petitioners, and stayed its operation; petitioners challenged these orders as unjustified.
Previous Decisions
Orders of the Administrative Tribunal dated 19th March 2012, 25th July 2012, and 4th July 2013 were passed; Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009 was also pending before the Court of District Judge-III, Panaji, Goa concerning the same property.
Issues
Whether the contesting respondents had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 4 years and 194 days in instituting an appeal against the conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was justified in granting leave to appeal and in staying the operation of the conversion sanad
Whether the respondents' plea of lack of knowledge of the conversion sanad was credible given the disclosure in the written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the respondents had filed several proceedings concerning the same property and therefore could not claim ignorance due to old age, sickness, or illiteracy; the written statement filed on 12th June 2009 in Civil Suit No.3 of 2009, paragraphs 29 and 30, specifically disclosed obtaining the conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006 on payment of conversion fees of Rs.13,28,000 and annexed a copy, so knowledge was established.
Respondents contended that they were old, sick, and illiterate, came from a rustic village, and had no source of information; they became aware of the sanad only in the first week of February 2011 through their advocate's discreet inquiries and thereafter filed the condonation application on 14th February 2011; they should not suffer for advocate's fault.
Judgment Excerpts
In Writ Petition No. 510 of 2013, the challenge is to the order dated 25th July 2012 by which the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has condoned the delay of 4 years and 194 days in filing an appeal to question the conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006 issued in favour of the Petitioners.
The first question which arises for determination is whether the contesting Respondents had shown sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 194 days in instituting an appeal against the conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006.
Defendants state that these defendants have on payment of conversion fees amounting to Rs. 13,28,000/- and after due approval from Town and Country Planning Department obtained conversion Sanad dated 2nd June 2006 from the Deputy Collector with respect to the property bearing survey No. 66/2 of the Village “combiem” situated at Azossim, Tiswadi Ilhas Goa for residential purpose.
The applicants states that she is a illiterate and 75 years old sick and weak person residing/hailing in rustic village of Azosim and absolutely had no source of information or knowledge regarding the impugned conversion sanad dated 02-06-2006 procured by the respondents, by practicing fraud on the revenue authorities.
Procedural History
Conversion sanad dated 2nd June 2006 was issued in favour of the petitioners. Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009 was instituted before the Court of District Judge-III, Panaji, Goa concerning the same property; written statement filed on 12th June 2009 disclosed the conversion sanad and annexed a copy. The Administrative Tribunal passed order dated 19th March 2012 granting leave to institute appeal, order dated 25th July 2012 condoning delay of 4 years and 194 days, and order dated 4th July 2013 staying operation of the conversion sanad. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos. 491 of 2013, 510 of 2013, and 76 of 2014. The High Court heard counsel and reserved judgment on 25th February 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Companies Act, 1956:
- Land Revenue Code, 1968:
