Back
1967 Supreme(Goa) 3
Goa High Court
R.S.BINDRA
Rama Bablu Naik - Appellant
Versus
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, at Panjim, through Administrator - Respondent
Decided On : 02/08/1967
S.K. Sonak, for Petitioner; Govt. Pleader (for Nos. 1 to 4) and U.B. Surlekar (for No. 5), for Respondents.
The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice and applies to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, including the disposal of revision petitions by the Government.
Headnote:
GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT, 1964 - SECTION 49, 50, 51 - REVISION PETITION - RIGHT TO BE HEARD - SECOND APPEAL - FINALITY OF APPELLATE ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - NATURAL JUSTICE - JUDICIAL FUNCTION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Rama Bablu Naik filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu rejecting his revision petition against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, which had reversed the order of the Mamlatdar granting him possession of a paddy field.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 49(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 does not contemplate any second appeal. It provides for first appeal to the Government against the original order (other than interim order) made by the Collector or the Tribunal. 2. The right of second appeal to the Government against an order made by the Collector in revision at the instance of the Government is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of natural justice. 3. The Government is bound to act in a legal and just manner while disposing of a revision petition and is presumed to have acted judicially. 4. No judicial function can be discharged to the prejudice of a suitor without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 5. The order of the Government rejecting Rama Bablu's revision petition in limine is bad in law and must be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether a second appeal to the Government from the appellate order of the Tribunal is contemplated by Section 49 of the Act? 2. Whether the Government is bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to a suitor before rejecting a revision petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of Section 49(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the appellate order of the Collector or the Tribunal is final and subject only to revision by the Government. 2. The words "or an order in appeal or revision" in Section 49(2) are mere surplusage and do not create a right of second appeal. 3. The right of second appeal to the Government against an order made by the Collector in revision at the instance of the Government is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of natural justice. 4. The Government is bound to act in a legal and just manner while disposing of a revision petition and is presumed to have acted judicially. 5. No judicial function can be discharged to the prejudice of a suitor without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
Final Decision: 1. The impugned order dated 1-12-1965 is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5. 2. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to dispose of the revision petition of Rama Bablu in terms of law and in the light of the observations made above. 3. No case has been made out by Rama Bablu for issuing any directions to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 4. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this petition.
Rama Bablu petitioned the Mamlatdar of Ponda for securing to him the possession of the field. The Mamlatdar granted the prayer by his order dated 9-6-1965. Rama Bablu took out execution of that order and secured possession of the field sometime in the month of September 1965. Atchut Bhico, however, challenged the validity of Mamlatdar's order by taking an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal which reversed the order of the Mamlatdar and dismissed the original petition of Rama Bablu. The latter having felt aggrieved moved the Government with a petition which he described as appeal-cum-revision for setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal and restoring that of the Mamlatdar. On 1-12-1965 the appeal-cum-revision of Rama Bablu was rejected in limine, without giving a hearing to him or his counsel, by Shri N. Subramaniam, Revenue Secretary, by order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu. The present writ petition is directed against that order and the relief claimed is that the order should be quashed by writs of certiorari and mandamus and the order of the Mamlatdar be declared to be legal and binding on the parties.
2. The writ was opposed only by respondent No. 5 Atchut Bhico. In his written statement this respondent affirmed that he had taken the field on lease from the Comunidade in 1953 and that he had never sublet the field to Rama Bablu. He said further that he had been cultivating the field personally though he had been engaging hired labourers including Rama Bablu for the purpose. He branded the Mamlatdar's order as illegal and maintained that the Administrative Tribunal had reached the correct conclusions.
3. Though respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were duly served but none turned up on their behalf to resist the prayers made in the writ petition.
4. The first question that was debated before this Court by Shri Sonak, the counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Surlikar representing respondent No. 5, was whether a second appeal to the Government from the appellate order of the Tribunal is contemplated by S. 49 of the Act. In order to appreciate the controversy, Section 49 of the Act has to be outlined here. It runs as under :
"(1) From every order other than an interim order passed by the Mamlatdar under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the Collector and the orders of the Collector on such appeal shall be final, subject to revision, if any by Government.
Provided that in respect of such classes or categories of appeals, as may be prescribed, the appeal shall lie to the Tribunal instead of to the Collector, and thereupon the orders of the Tribunal shall likewise be final.
(2) From every original order other than an interim order or an order in appeal or revision passed by the Collector, or by the Tribunal, an appeal shall lie to the Government and the orders of Government on such appeal shall be final."
Shri Surlikar urged vigorously that since under Sub-Section (1) of S. 49 the appellate order of the Collector, or of the Tribunal, against the order of the Mamlatdar is declared to be final, the legislature never contemplated any second appeal. Shri Sonak contended eq
