A.P. Lavande, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 13/3/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No. 105 of 2008 partly allowing the appeal filed by the Respondents herein against the order dated 19/6/2006 passed by the Deputy Collector in Case No. LRC/EVC/SAN/19/1989.
4. At the instance of the Petitioner, proceedings u/s 40 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code were initiated against the original Respondent Shri Subhash Shirodkar by notice dated 29/8/1989 alleging that he had encroached on Government land to the extent of 16.80 sq. metres bearing survey No. 37/1. In the course of the proceedings, the original Respondent filed a reply on 27/3/1991. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed application dated 25/11/1992 before the Dy. Collector, Quepem stating therein that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the Respondent had encroached upon an additional area of survey No. 37/1 and the total area encroached was 296.87 sq. mtrs. No reply was filed to the said application by the original Respondent.
5. By judgment and order dated 19/6/2006, the Dy. Collector allowed the application and directed the original Respondent Shri Subhash Shirodkar to hand over the possession of the encroached area of 296.87 sq. mtrs.
6. Against the said order, the original Respondent preferred appeal to the Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the original Respondent died and his legal representatives/Respondents were brought on record. The Administrative Tribunal by judgment and order dated 13/3/2009 partly allowed the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19/6/2006 of the Dy. Collector to the extent of 166.87 sq. mts and confirming the order with respect to the area of 130 sq. mtrs.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record discloses that to the application dated 25/11/1992, no reply was filed by the original Respondent. By the said application, the Petitioner had contended that the original Respondent had encroached into an area of 296.87 sq. mtrs. It would be therefore in the interest of justice to permit the Respondents to file reply to the said application and produce relevant material in support of their case.
9. The judgment dated 19/6/2006 of Deputy Collector, Quepem is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order dated 13/3/2009 passed by the Tribunal which is based only on the admission of the original Respondent that he had encroached to the extent of 130 sq. mtrs is also liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 19/6/2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Qupem and judgment and order dated 13/3/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The Respondents are permitted to file reply to the application dated 25/11/1992 filed by the Petitioner herein before the Dy. Collector and S.D.O, Quepem.
11. Reply, if any, to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Considering that the alleged encroachment is of the year 1992, the Dy. Collector shall pass appropriate order expeditiously and in any case before 30/10/2011 in accordance with law.
12. The parties to appear before the Dy. Collector on 1/6/2011 at 3p.m.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
