Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Valmiki Menezes, J.
Smt. Gopiki Soma Lingudkar - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector & S.D.O. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 198 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of mundkar purchase and impugned orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments on delayed reasoned order timing (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. inquiries confirm deputy collector's procedural lapses (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. systemic irregularities in certified copy procedures noted (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. public documents require date stamps for limitations (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. mandatory endorsements on certified copy applications (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. remit to tribunal; direct quasi-judicial procedures (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
1. This Petition assails two orders, both dated 16.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Collector, SDO, Pernem Taluka in case no. DCP/MND/APL/3-9/2023. The first order allows an application filed by Respondent No.2 and 3 for leave to appeal while the second order grants stay of Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-1 of Pernem Taluka in Case No. JM-I/MND/PUR/11/2020 allowing present Petitioner’s application for purchase of a dwelling house and land appurtenant thereto, under Section 16 of Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars ( Protection from Eviction) Act 1975.
FACTS WHICH ARE BORNE FROM THE AVERMENTS IN THE PETITION:
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner had filed an application on 01.09.2020, for the purchase of a dwelling house before the Joint Mamlatdar-1 of Pernem Taluka in Case No. JM-I/MND/PUR/11/2020; vide its Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023, the Mamlatdar invoked powers under Section 16 of the Act and allowed the same.
3. Subsequently the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein, filed an application seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the aforementioned Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 along with an application for Stay of the said Judgment and Order, both dated 01.09.2023, before the Deputy Collector and SDO of Pernem (Respondent No. 1 herein). An Appeal under Section 24 of the Goa Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 bearing number DCP/MND/APL/3-9/2023 was also filed on 01.09.2023 before Respondent No. 1.
4. Thereafter, by an Order dated 16.12.2023, Respondent No. 1 allowed the applications dated 01.09.2023, thereby granting the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 leave to appeal and stay of the said Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023.
5. On the very same day, i.e. on 16.12.2023, the Petitioner filed separate applications for urgent certified copies of the Orders passed by Respondent No. 1 in the application for stay and in the application seeking leave to appeal, which were inwarded in the Office of Respondent No. 1 on 18.12.2023 under Inward Nos. 7110 and 7109 respectively. The said Applications were followed by reminders/requests dated 29.12.2023 made by the Petitioners and inwarded in the Office of Respondent No. 1 under inward Nos. 7308 and 7309 respectively.
6. Pursuant to such repeated requests for urgent certified copies of the Order dated 16.12.2023, the Office of Respondent No. 1 on 02.01.2024, furnished only the Order dated 16.12.2023 recorded in the Proceeding Sheet of the application for leave to appeal and order dated 16.12.2023 on the Proceeding Sheet of the application for stay of the Order and Judgment dated 04.07.2023.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 in the Proceeding Sheet, the Petitioner filed two separate Mundkar Revision Applications before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Mundkar Revision Application No. 3/2024, challenging the order granting leave to file appeal to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2/2024, challenging the order granting stay of the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023.
8. The Administrative Tribunal, vide Order dated 04.01.2024 in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2/2024, requested Respondent No. 1 to defer the hearing of the proceedings beyond the returnable date i.e. 06.02.2024.
9. On 06.01.2024, the Petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 1 and placed the Ad
Quasi-judicial authorities must pronounce reasoned orders in open court with immediate file availability; certified copies require date endorsements for limitation exclusion; detailed procedural dire....
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
The court held that the Deputy Collector's order setting aside multiple revenue entries was invalid due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
The court upheld the discretion of the Prothonotary to grant certified copies to a third party with legitimate interest, emphasizing the necessity of showing sufficient cause under Rule 268.
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
Sufficient cause for delay excusing late appeal can challenge decisions in eviction matters; jurisdictional errors in previous rulings warranted reinstatement of appeal.
The judgment must be in writing, signed, and dated on the date of pronouncement, as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Point of Law : It is no doubt true that if there was any provision to be found in impugned Act which prevented the Wage Board from giving reasons for its decision, it might be construed to mean that ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
