Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Miss Telma Gonsalves, challenged an order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, which had allowed a revision preferred by the respondent, Shri Namdev Babuso Chodankar. The dispute originated from an application filed by the respondent for registration as a Mundkar under Section 29 of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The Mamlatdar allowed the application, but the petitioner appealed to the Addl. Dy. Collector under Section 29(8) of the Act, who allowed the appeal on 21.10.1998. The respondent then filed a revision before the Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the impugned order. The High Court examined the maintainability of the revision. The court noted that Section 25 of the Act provides for revision only against orders passed in appeal under Section 24 or under sub-section (2) of Section 25. Since the order in question was passed under Section 29(8), which is not an appeal under Section 24, the revision was not maintainable. The court held that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and accordingly quashed the impugned order. The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the Addl. Dy. Collector was restored.
Headnote
A) Mundkar Law - Revision - Maintainability - Section 25 of Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 - Revision lies only against orders passed in appeal under Section 24 or under sub-section (2) of Section 25 - The order impugned before the Tribunal was passed under Section 29(8) of the Act, which is not covered by Section 25 - Held that the revision was not maintainable and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain it (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision preferred by the respondent before the learned Administrative Tribunal against the order passed by the Addl. Dy. Collector under Section 29(8) of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 was maintainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 29.07.2010, and restored the order of the Addl. Dy. Collector dated 21.10.1998.
Law Points
- Revision lies only against orders passed in appeal under Section 24 or under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act
- Order passed under Section 29(8) is not covered by Section 25
- Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain revision against such order
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 79
Writ Petition No. 115 of 2011
Mr. M. B. D' Costa, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. Betquekar, Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Advocate for the Respondent
Shri Namdev Babuso Chodankar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal allowing a revision against an appellate order under the Mundkars Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Administrative Tribunal's order dated 29.07.2010 and restoration of the Addl. Dy. Collector's order dated 21.10.1998.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's revision, which reversed the appellate order in her favor.
Previous Decisions
Mamlatdar allowed respondent's application for Mundkar registration; Addl. Dy. Collector allowed petitioner's appeal on 21.10.1998; Administrative Tribunal allowed respondent's revision on 29.07.2010.
Issues
Whether the revision before the Administrative Tribunal was maintainable under Section 25 of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 against an order passed under Section 29(8) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the revision was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 29(8), not under Section 24 or Section 25(2).
Respondent's arguments not recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A revision under Section 25 of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 lies only against orders passed in appeal under Section 24 or under sub-section (2) of Section 25. An order passed under Section 29(8) of the Act is not covered by Section 25, and therefore the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision.
Judgment Excerpts
On plain reading of the said provision, a revision to the Administrative Tribunal would lie against Orders passed in Appeal under Section 24 or under sub-Section (2) of the said Act.
In the present case, the Order impugned before the learned Tribunal was an Order passed in an Appeal under Section 29(8) of the said Act and not under Section 24 of the said Act.
Procedural History
Respondent filed application for Mundkar registration under Section 29 before Mamlatdar, which was allowed. Petitioner appealed to Addl. Dy. Collector under Section 29(8), who allowed the appeal on 21.10.1998. Respondent filed revision before Administrative Tribunal, which allowed it on 29.07.2010. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975: Section 25, Section 29, Section 29(8), Section 24
