The court emphasized the necessity for clarity in judicial orders and affirmed the right of parties to contest applications on their merits, particularly regarding access paths in construction disputes.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in an Application for Speaking to Minutes in Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019; and order dated 18.01.2024 of the High Court in Review Application (Civil) No. 10/2023 dismissing the review petition.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Panchayat Act’.] before the Deputy Director of Panchayats challenging the Village Panchayat’s refusal to issue a construction licence in his favour. This licence would have allowed the respondent to raise a construction on his land, which is adjacent to the land of the appellant. The Deputy Director of Panchayats allowed the appeal by an order dated 29.01.2013 and directed the Village Panchayat to grant the construction licence. Claiming that this construction would adversely affect the pathway, the appellant challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Panchayats by way of an appeal before the Director of Panchayats under Section 66(7) of the Panchayat Act. The appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 03.07.2015. The respondent challenged this order in a revision application before the District Judge-IV, South Goa² [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. District Judge’.] under Section 201-B of the Panchayat Act along with an application to condone the delay of 122 days (alleged to be 360 days as per the appellant) in filing the revision.

4. The District Judge by its order dated 08.01.2019 condoned the delay by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act and excluded the time spent by the respondent in pursuing a writ petition before the High Court, which was eventually withdrawn. Questioning the legality of condoning the delay, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 before the High Court and sought setting-aside of the order dated 08.01.2019.

5. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it appears that there was some kind of settlement between the parties. The respondent made a statement before the High Court that he is ready to leave access, to the extent of 3 meters of pathway as directed by the Director of Panchayats in the order dated 03.07.2015. It was also submitted that respondent was ready to withdraw the revision application pending before the Ld. District Judge. In view of the settlement, the High Court passed an order dated 02.03.2022 disposing of the writ petition, holding as follows:-

“7. In fact, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has instructions to state that the said respondent is withdrawing the Civil Revision Application filed before the District Court.

8. Once the aforesaid statement is made, nothing remains in the present Writ Petition, for the reason that the order challenged in the present Writ Petition is an order passed by the District Court condoning the delay in filing the revision application. When the respondent no 1 has made a statement before this Court that he is withdrawing the Civil Revision Application itself filed before the District Court, obviously, this Court is no longer called upon to decide as to whether the delay was properly condoned by the District Court or not.

9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of by recording the statement made on behalf of the respondent no 1 that he shall provide access of 3 mts as per clause (4) of the judgment and order dated 03.07.2015, passed by the Director of Panchayats. On the statement made on behalf of respondent no. 1, it is recorded that the Civil Revision Application filed by the respondent no. 1 before the District Court bearing Civil Revision Application no. 5 of 2019 stands withdrawn. Accordingly, the said Civil Revision Application stands disposed of.

10. Nothing remains to be examined in th