Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, seeking to quash an order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.51/2006. The respondents had preferred an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Deputy Collector. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and the learned counsel for the respondents. The court found that the Administrative Tribunal had failed to consider the evidence on record and had acted beyond its jurisdiction. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order suffered from non-application of mind and was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Administrative Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Land Revenue Appeal - The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not considering the evidence on record and by making findings without proper appreciation of the material - Held that the order was liable to be quashed as it suffered from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and properly considered the evidence while allowing the appeal against the Deputy Collector's order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.51/2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Administrative Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Administrative Tribunal must consider evidence on record
- cannot exceed jurisdiction under Land Revenue Code
- writ of certiorari lies for errors apparent on face of record
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 97
Writ Petition No.823 of 2009
Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias for Petitioners, Ms. S. Pai Kir for Respondent No.1, Shri R. Menezes for Respondents No.2 to 4
Mrs. Teresa Rodrigues and others
State of Goa through Deputy Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Panaji-Goa and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order of the Administrative Tribunal in a land revenue appeal.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.51/2006.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to consider evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Collector had passed a judgment which was appealed before the Administrative Tribunal; the Tribunal allowed the appeal by order dated 26/08/2009.
Issues
Whether the Administrative Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction while allowing the appeal.
Whether the Tribunal properly considered the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence and acted beyond its jurisdiction.
Respondents supported the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Administrative Tribunal must consider the evidence on record and act within its jurisdiction; failure to do so renders its order liable to be quashed under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition seeks to quash and set aside by a writ or certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari order or direction thereby quashing order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.51/2006.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Deputy Collector...
Procedural History
The respondents filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal against the Deputy Collector's judgment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 26/08/2009. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
