Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Baidas Pancha Thr His Power Of Attorney ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 1 February, 2022

Bench: G.S. Patel, Madhav J. Jamdar

                                                                      923-ASWP-958-2022.DOC




                      Arun


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2022



                      Baidas Pancha Through His Power of Attorney              ...Petitioner
                      Holder Sushant Shigwan
                            Versus
                      Union of India & Anr                                  ...Respondents


                      Mr Mehul Shah, with Chaitali for the Petitioner.
                      Mr Hiten Venegavkar, for the Union Territory of Diu, Secretariat.


                                            CORAM        G.S. Patel &
                                                         Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.

                                            DATED:       1st February 2022
                      PC:-

1. Rule. Respondents waive service.

2. The Writ Petition challenges an order dated 12th February 2021 at pages 138 and 139, Exhibit "Q". By this order, the Collector, ARUN RAMCHNDRA Diu, has purported to embark on a review of a previous order of SANKPAL 26th April 2012.

3. Our attention is drawn to Section 193 of the Goa, Daman and 10:37:28 +0530 Diu Land Revenue Code 1968. It is extracted in the Petition at pages 27 to 28, and reads thus:

1st February 2022 923-ASWP-958-2022.DOC "193. Review of orders.--

(1) The Tribunal or revenue or survey officer may, either on its or his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself or himself or by any of its or his predecessors-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as it or he thinks fit: Provided that a revenue officer subordinate to the Collector or Settlement Officer or Superintendent of surveys shall, before reviewing any order under this section, obtain the permission of the Collector or Director of Settlement and Land Records, as the case may be, and the Collector or the Director of Settlement and Land Records shall, before reviewing an order passed by any of his predecessors-in-office, obtain the permission of the Government, if the review is to be made on a ground other than that of clerical mistake. (2) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings and except by notice to the other party, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the date of the order. (3) No order shall be reviewed except on the following grounds, namely:--

(i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence; or

(ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

(iii) any other sufficient reason.

(4) For the purpose of this section, the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in-office of any revenue officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a revenue office and to whom there is no successor in the district.

1st February 2022 923-ASWP-958-2022.DOC (5) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or in revision shall not be reviewed by any officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority. (6) A revenue or survey officer shall not on his own motion review any order under this section if the order has been made more than six months previously. (7) Orders passed in review shall on no account be reviewed".

(Emphasis added)

4. Prima facie, sub-section (2) makes it clear that there is a time limit of 90 days within which a review can be entertained. Even assuming that this period can be extended, the law is well-settled that any relaxation must be reasonable. The public policy behind this is that old and settled issued or matters should not constantly be disturbed or brought into question at distant points in time.

5. It is for this reason that, apart from issuing Rule, we are inclined to grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).

6. The Affidavit in Reply is to be filed and served on or before 4th March 2022.

7. Rule is returnable on 9th March 2022.

8. All contentions are expressly left open.

1st February 2022 923-ASWP-958-2022.DOC

9. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 1st February 2022