Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Review Application filed by Mrs. Ana Maria Vaz, the respondent in the original Writ Petition No. 49/2018, seeking review of an order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The original writ petition was filed by Mrs. Mariana Lobo against the Village Panchayat of Cortalim-Quellosim and Mrs. Ana Maria Vaz, challenging an order of the Additional Director of Panchayats that directed regularization of an unauthorized construction prior to demolition. The High Court had quashed that order, holding that the Additional Director had gone off on a tangent and that regularization could not be directed without proper consideration. The review applicant contended that the court had failed to consider the ratio in Sayed Muzafar Ali and the provisions of the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, which allegedly gave her a right to regularization. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the applicant relying on Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and other petitions. The court analyzed the scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that review is not an appeal in disguise and is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any such error; rather, she sought a re-argument of the case. The court noted that the regularization Act did not confer an automatic right and that the Additional Director's direction was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the review application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 - Review application dismissed as applicant failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record; mere disagreement with the judgment or re-argument of the case is not a ground for review - Held that the court had considered the regularization aspect and the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, and the Additional Director's direction was beyond jurisdiction (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 10.04.2018 in Writ Petition No. 49/2018 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Civil Review Application No. 5 of 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of the case
- The Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act
- 2016 does not confer an automatic right to regularization
- The Additional Director of Panchayats cannot direct regularization prior to demolition without proper application of mind
Case Details
Civil Review Application No. 5 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 49 of 2018
Shivan Desai for applicant, Joaquim Godinho for respondents
Mrs. Mariana Lobo, The Secretary/Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Cortalim-Quellosim
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Review Application seeking review of an order in a writ petition concerning regularization of unauthorized construction and panchayat demolition direction.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (Mrs. Ana Maria Vaz) sought review of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 49/2018, which had quashed the Additional Director of Panchayats' order directing regularization prior to demolition.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged an error apparent on the face of the record because the court did not consider the ratio in Sayed Muzafar Ali and the provisions of the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, which she claimed gave her a right to regularization.
Previous Decisions
The High Court in Writ Petition No. 49/2018 had quashed the order of the Additional Director of Panchayats dated 10.04.2018, holding that the Additional Director went off on a tangent while considering regularization and that the regularization application was not properly considered.
Issues
Whether the order dated 10.04.2018 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the court failed to consider the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016 and the ratio in Sayed Muzafar Ali.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the court did not consider the ratio in Sayed Muzafar Ali and the provisions of the Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, which gave her a right to regularization.
The applicant relied on Manohar Vithal Korgaonkar and other petitions to support her case.
The respondents opposed the review, contending that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi
Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit re-argument of the case. The applicant failed to demonstrate any such error, and the court had considered the regularization aspect and the relevant Act. The Additional Director's direction was beyond jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an application for review of the Order dated 10.04.2018 passed by this Court, pursuant to which the Writ Petition came to be disposed off after quashing and setting aside the order under challenge in the same.
The applicant seeks a review thereof on the premise that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as this Court had not considered the ratio laid down in the case of Sayed Muzafar Ali whilst coming to a conclusion that the Additional Director of Panchayats went off at a tangent while considering the aspect of regularization.
Procedural History
The original Writ Petition No. 49/2018 was filed by Mrs. Mariana Lobo challenging an order of the Additional Director of Panchayats. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 10.04.2018, quashing the order. The respondent in that petition, Mrs. Ana Maria Vaz, filed the present Civil Review Application No. 5/2019 on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record. The review application was heard and dismissed on 12.04.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLVII Rule 1
- Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016:
- Goa Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction Act, 2008:
