Bombay High Court Flags Procedural Irregularities By Goa Revenue Authorities In Pronouncing Orders, Issuing Certified Copies
The Bombay High Court has flagged serious procedural irregularities being followed by revenue authorities in Goa while exercising quasi-judicial powers under various local laws and has issued directions to streamline the process of pronouncing orders and issuing certified copies. The Court observed that the lack of a proper procedure in recording orders, pronouncing judgments, and...
The Bombay High Court has flagged serious procedural irregularities being followed by revenue authorities in Goa while exercising quasi-judicial powers under various local laws and has issued directions to streamline the process of pronouncing orders and issuing certified copies. The Court observed that the lack of a proper procedure in recording orders, pronouncing judgments, and issuing certified copies creates uncertainty in computing limitation periods.
Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition filed challenging two orders dated 16 December 2023 passed by the Deputy Collector in proceedings arising under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The dispute concerned the petitioner's application for the purchase of a dwelling house and land appurtenant thereto under Section 16 of the Act, which had earlier been allowed by the Joint Mamlatdar by judgment dated 4 July 2023. The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector along with applications seeking leave to appeal and stay of the Mamlatdar's order, which were allowed.
The Court noted that the present case was not an isolated instance and that several petitions had come before the Court alleging irregular practices followed by revenue authorities while exercising quasi-judicial powers under statutes including the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966.
The Court emphasised that certified copies of quasi-judicial orders constitute public documents within the meaning of the Evidence Act and are essential for litigants seeking to challenge such orders before higher forums. In the absence of clear records showing when an application for a certified copy was filed, when the copy was prepared and when it was delivered, it becomes difficult for appellate or revisional forums to correctly compute limitation periods or determine the time required for obtaining certified copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act.
“… in all such quasi-judicial proceedings, specially where a period of limitation is prescribed, and the provisions for exclusion of time such as the one contained in Section 12 of the Limitation Act are to be applied, it would be incumbent on the Authority… to specify all the relevant dates which would have to be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation and… exclusion of time as provided under these enactments,” the Court observed.
The Court held that, as far as possible, therefore, the urgent Certified Copy of an order ought to be issued immediately on the application being received or at most within 48 hours, after endorsing on the receipt issued to the Applicant.
Accordingly, the Court issued certain directions to streamline the procedure for passing Judgments/Orders and issuing certified copies thereof to the parties, holding that the authorities must ensure that certified copies issued to parties contain the complete judgment and not merely the operative portion recorded in the proceeding sheet.
In the facts of the present case, the Court noted that revision applications challenging the Deputy Collector's orders were already pending before the Goa Administrative Tribunal. It therefore directed the Tribunal to dispose of the revisions.
Case Title: Gopiki Soma Lingudkar v. Deputy Collector & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 198 of 2024]