The court clarified the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 103 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, and emphasized that the application filed under the said provision must be maintainable and within the prescribed scope of the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.

2. Although this litigation between the parties has a chequered history, the principal question raised on behalf of the petitioners is, as to what is the true scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 103 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, in the context of correcting errors in the record of rights or registers maintained under Chapter VIII of the said Code. The aforesaid provision specifically pertains to correction of clerical errors.

3. The respondent, in the present case, had initiated proceeding under Section 103 of the aforesaid Code in the year 1993, for correction of an error in the record of rights, claiming that the name of the predecessor of the petitioners, i.e. Joseph Paulo, was wrongly recorded in the context of land bearing survey nos.43/8 and 44/2 at village Parra, Bardez. The respondent prayed for deletion of the name of the said Joseph Paulo from the record of rights and to add the name of the respondent in such record, in the context of the aforesaid property.

4. The Deputy Collector considered the said application and issued notice to Joseph Paulo. It was found that Jospeh Paulo had expired and, therefore, the Deputy Collector permitted the respondent to carry out service of notice by publication in a daily newspaper to the legal heirs of Joseph Paulo. The Deputy Collector fixed the application filed by the respondent for consideration on various dates from 27.04.1993 to 24.11.1994. The application was then kept for hearing on 24.01.1995.

5. On 24.01.1995, the Deputy Collector passed the impugned order exercising power, ostensibly under Section 103 of the Code and directed the Mamlatdar of Bardez to delete the name of Joseph Paulo from the occupants' column in the aforesaid property and to record the name of the respondent. In the said order, it was specifically recorded that Joseph Paulo had expired and that publication was permitted for service on legal heirs of Joseph Paulo. Thereafter, it was recorded that the respondent, i.e. Joseph Paulo, remained absent on the date the order was passed, though notice was issued through publication in newspaper.

6. Although, the said order dated 24.01.1995 was made subject matter of challenge by the petitioners under the provisions of the aforesaid Code, in the present Writ Petition, the very order dated 24.01.1995, is also challenged directly before this Court, on the ground that such an order is wholly without jurisdiction and that it is a nullity. It is contended that the nature of relief sought by the respondent could not have been granted by the Deputy Collector by exercising power under Section 103 of the Code, which pertains only to the correction of clerical errors in the record of rights or registers maintained under Chapter VIII of the aforesaid Code.

7. It was the contention of the petitioners that since they were not residing in Goa, they became aware of the aforesaid order dated 24.01.1995, in the year 2002, when they intended to carry out certain construction in the property. According to them, when they became aware of the aforesaid order, they followed up the matter in the office of the Deputy Collector and eventually the Talathi issued a certified copy of the order on 10.07.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for setting aside the order dated 24.01.1995, along with an application for condonation of delay. This application was purportedly filed under Section 175 of the aforesaid Code.

8. By judgment and order dated 05.07.2012, the Deputy Collector allowed the said application and directed that the petitioners could file their reply by 23.08.2012, so that their objections to the application filed by the respondent under Section 103 of the Code, could be considered.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal bef