Writ Petition No. 453 of 2015. Case: Mohan Khemlo Bandekar Vs The Additional Collector-II and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 453 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Shivan Dessai, Advocate and For Respondents: Manoj Govekar, Advocate
JudgesS. B. Shukre, J.
IssueGoa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 - Sections 22, 22(3), 4; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 14(2), 2(b), 2(h)
Judgement DateJanuary 12, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

S. B. Shukre, J.

  1. Heard.

  2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent.

  3. This Writ Petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 16/10/2014, passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner.

  4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 (Mamlatdar's Court Act, for short), directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from the right of way claimed by the respondent No. 2, preferred a Revision Application in terms of Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act. The Revision Application, in terms of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 22, ordinarily, has to be preferred before the Collector, who has been invested with revisional powers. However, under Sub-section (3), a power has been conferred upon the Government to authorise, by notification in official gazette, any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise all the powers of the Collector under Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act.

  5. It is the contention of the petitioner that when he consulted his Lawyer regarding filing of the Revision Application, he was advised by his Lawyer that it could also be filed before the Deputy Collector. Accordingly, on his instructions, his Lawyer filed a Revision Application under Section 22(3) of the Mamlatdar's Court Act before the Deputy Collector. The petitioner submits that filing of such an application before the Deputy Collector was under bonafide belief that the Deputy Collector did have jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. When an objection in this regard was taken by the respondent No. 2, same came to be allowed by the Deputy Collector, after granting hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2. The deputy Collector held that as no notification was issued and published in the official gazette by the Government at any point of time, authorising him to decide the said application, he had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application.

  6. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Collector i.e. the Additional Collector-II, who is conferred with the revisional powers under Section 22, by filing a Revision Application, together with an application for condonation of delay, occurred in filing the same. The application was vehemently opposed by the respondent No. 2. The Additional Collector held that no due diligence was shown by the petitioner in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT