JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---The petitioner challenges in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated 27th September, 1989, in Land Revenue Appeal No. 15 of 1987 which has unsettled the judgment of the Additional Collector of Goa, dated 24th February, 1987, in First Appeal No. LRC/AC/1/1984. 2. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Additional Collector has reversed the judgment of the Deputy Collector, South Division, Margao-Goa, dated 5th September, 1983, whereby he has dismissed an application moved by the petitioner praying for settling the boundary dispute with regard to the landed property surveyed under No. 107/4 of village Assolna, Salcete Taluka. In other words the impugned judgment of the Tribunal has held the judgment of the Deputy Collector which has directed that the property surveyed under No. 107/4 could be re-surveyed in conformity with the old survey map. 3. The petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the co-owners of the undivided property known as Baimfol situated at Assolna bearing Matriz No. 1707 and surveyed under No. 107/4. It is the case of the petitioner that though the property was common, however, each co-owner was enjoying specifically distinct portions of the property. To the north of this property there is property belonging to respondent No. 1 presently surveyed under No. 107/1. It is further the case of the petitioner that the portion of the property surveyed under No. 107/4 which is in his enjoyment and possession including two coconut trees was wrongly included under Survey No. 107/1. Therefore as there was a dispute regarding the boundaries of the property surveyed under No. 107/4 the petitioner moved an application on 13th March, 1979 addressed to the respondent No. 3 requesting him to re-survey the said property and re-define its boundaries in terms of section 113 of the Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) so as to include in the petitioners land the area excluded therefrom. 4. The respondent No. 2 filed his written statement to this application on 4-4-1979 admitting the case of the petitioner and stating that he had no objection if the area wrongly included in Survey No. 107/1 is included in Survey No. 107/4. 4. The respondent No. 2 filed his written statement to this application on 4-4-1979 admitting the case of the petitioner and stating that he had no objection if the area wrongly included in Survey No. 107/1 is included in Survey No. 107/4. The respondent No. 1 however filed his reply on 22nd June, 1979 stating that the petitioner had never been in possession of holding surveyed under No. 107/4 and that it was the respondent No. 1 who is enjoying the suit property along with other co-owners. The petitioner in support of his case has relied on the old survey records in respect of the suit property. 5. The respondent No. 3 after conducting an enquiry held that nothing could be found out from the old survey records and rejected the petitioners application apparently on the basis of the petitioners inability to prove that the boundary of his property was a slight curve shown in the old survey instead of being a straight line. 6. Aggrieved by this judgment of the Deputy Collector the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector and the Additional Collector by his judgment dated 24th February, 1987 held that the property was a joint property of the petitioner and of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 though the trees were enjoyed separately by the co-owners. The Additional Collector further held that the authenticity of the old survey plan had not been questioned by any of the co-owners and as such the new survey plan could not deviate from the old. Consequently the appeal was allowed and a direction was issued that the area of the property surveyed under No. 107/4 which was wrongly included in Survey No. 107/1 should be deleted and the survey records corrected accordingly. 7. The respondent No. 1 then moved the second appeal before the Tribunal which by the impugned judgment unsettled the judgment of the Additional Collector on the ground that it was not possible for the Tribunal to hold that the old survey was superior to the new survey and for that reason the order of the Additional Collector was to be set aside. 8. 8. Shri Rebello, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered that there were concurrent findings of facts given by the Deputy Collector and the Additional Collector on the point of the suit property being a common one and held in co-ownership by the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the learned Counsel both the Deputy Collector and the Additional Collector have thus considered the existence of a dispute regarding the boundaries between the two survey holdings surveyed under Nos. 107/4 and 107/1 and have found that there was a dispute within the meaning of section 113 of the Code in respect whereof the application to settle its boundaries was very much maintainable. The Deputy Collector, however, rejected the petitioners application on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land. This finding, the learned Counsel urged, was erroneous because admittedly the Deputy Collector was not dealing with the petitioners case under Chapter VIII of the Code but instead under its Chapter IX regarding fixation of boundaries. It was further submitted that the first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the boundaries should be pre-demarcated in consonance with the boundaries shown in the old survey (cadastro) since the authenticity of the said old survey documents itself in all respects had not been challenged by the respondent No. 1 when this document was relied and produced by the petitioner and marked as Exhibit during the proceedings before the Deputy Collector. The learned Counsel contended that therefore the judgment of the Tribunal ought to be set aside because the finding that there was no provision to hold re-survey of individual holdings is contrary to the express language of section 113 of the Code. The further finding of the Tribunal that the first appellate Court has not given reasons for accepting the genuineness of the old survey plan (cadastro) was also not borne out from the records being thus erroneous because the reason given was that the old survey had not been objected or challenged by the respondent No. 1 when produced by the petitioner. The learned Counsel also made a grievance that while setting aside the judgment of the Additional Collector the Tribunal grossly overlooked the fact that it was dealing with a case of a second appeal wherein only substantial questions of law could have been adjudicated by the Tribunal. 9. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel a reference may be usefully made to the very scheme of the Code, namely, its section which are dealing with the matter of land records. In this respect Mr. Rebello has taken me through the provisions of Chapter VIII and Chapter IX of the Code which are material to this case. In Chapter VIII which deals with Land Records, section 94 refers to preparation of record of rights and lays down that it shall be lawful for the Government to take all measures for the preparation and maintenance of land records, including the record of rights and maps, and all other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in accordance with such rules and directions as may be made in this behalf. Section 95 says that a record of the rights in land as occupant, tenant, Government lessee, mortgagee or howsoever, shall be maintained in every village in prescribed form including particulars referred to in the said provision. Section 96 refers to acquisition of rights to be reported and section 97 deals with the register of mutations and register of disputed cases. Section 98 to 102 prescribe the procedure to be followed in the preparation of the records. Section 103 allows the Collector to correct clerical mistakes or errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights and registers maintained. Section 105 lays down the presumption of correctness in the entries in the record of rights and the register of mutation till the contrary is proved or a lawful entry is substituted therefor. 10. Chapter IX deals with boundaries and boundary marks and in its section 110 stipulates that the boundaries of all villages and all survey numbers in villages therein shall be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. Section 111 refers to determination of village boundaries while section 112 deals with determination of field boundaries. 10. Chapter IX deals with boundaries and boundary marks and in its section 110 stipulates that the boundaries of all villages and all survey numbers in villages therein shall be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. Section 111 refers to determination of village boundaries while section 112 deals with determination of field boundaries. Section 113 speaks of disputes regarding boundaries between villages, survey numbers and sub-divisions and provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of a village or a field or a holding which has not been surveyed, or if at any time after the completion of a survey a dispute arises concerning the boundary of any village or survey number or sub-division of a survey number, it shall be decided by the Collector after holding a formal inquiry at which the village officers and all persons interested shall have an opportunity of appearing and producing evidence. The learned Counsel stated that this section is available in two contingencies, namely, where no survey has been carried out and also in case after the survey has been completed if a dispute arises regarding the boundaries. Section 114 deals with demarcation of boundaries of survey number or sub-division and provides that the Collector may, on the application of a party interested, demarcate the boundaries of a survey number or of a sub-division and construct boundary marks thereon. Section 115 refers to the effect of settlement of boundaries. Sub-section (1) provides that the settlement of a boundary under this Chapter shall be determinative of the proper position of the boundary lines or boundary marks and of the rights of the holders on either side of the boundary fixed in respect of the land adjudged to appertain, or not to appertain, to their respective holdings. Sub-section (2) lays down that where a boundary has been so fixed, the Collector may at any time summarily evict any person who holds land and who is wrongfully in possession of any land which has been adjudged in the settlement of boundary not to appertain to his holding or to the holding of any person through or under whom he claims. Sub-section (4) prescribes that any person who has been evicted or is about to be evicted from any land under the provisions of sub-section (2) may, within a period of one year from the date of the settlement of the boundary, institute a civil suit to establish his title thereto. 11. According to the learned Counsel Chapter VIII of the Code cannot thus take away the right of demarcation by the Collector as contemplated in section 113 of Chapter IX on the question of the boundaries between two holdings. It was submitted that the Code thus provides that once the formal enquiry is held and boundaries are fixed by the Collector as per the new demarcation the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is the civil suit provided in sub-section (4) of section 115 of the Code. It was also urged that so far the power of Collector is concerned there could be also no dispute that it has powers to settle the dispute, the only question being only to find out whether the petitioner in this case had been able to make out any case under section 113 to enable the Collector to exercise such powers. 12. It thus follows that section 115 of the Code keeps open to the Collector to exercise his powers under section 113 in order to settle disputes regarding boundaries even in respect of promulgated record of rights. Otherwise and if this was not the reasonable interpretation emergent from the legal provision, section 113 would be inconsistent by itself and meaningless in the context of the provisions of the Code. This being the position it seems that the presumption of authenticity of the survey records referred to in section 115 should be construed as referring only to the entries in the survey records and not in respect of its boundaries. The very wording of section 113 does not seem to put any limitation or time restriction for any aggrieved party to approach the Collector and raise any dispute regarding the boundaries between two individual holdings even after the promulgation of survey records. 13. The very wording of section 113 does not seem to put any limitation or time restriction for any aggrieved party to approach the Collector and raise any dispute regarding the boundaries between two individual holdings even after the promulgation of survey records. 13. In this view of the matter I am satisfied that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal insofar as it held that there cannot be said that there was a dispute to be adjudicated between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 within the meaning of section 113 is manifestly wrong once the concurrent findings of the two Courts below have acknowledged that the suit property was a common one to the petitioner and to both the respondents and also that it was held on co-ownership by them. Further the finding of the Tribunal that the Code does not contemplate a re-survey of individual holding is again obviously against the express provision of section 113 which in unmistakable terms enables the Collector to decide any dispute which arises concerning the boundary of a village or a field or a holding which has not been surveyed and even at any time after the completion of the survey a dispute which arises concerning the boundary of any village or survey number or sub-division of a survey number, after holding a formal enquiry and giving to all interested persons an opportunity to appear and produce evidence. Similarly the argument that the first appellate Court has not given reasons as to why the old survey plan should be followed is also patently misconceived because the Additional Collector while holding it reliable has expressly said that he was inclined to accept its genuineness since the authenticity of the old survey plan has not been questioned by any of the co-owners and therefore the new survey plan could not deviate from the old. It is to be borne in mind that the tribunal in refusing to support this finding of the Deputy Collector, which seems to be quite sound and permissible, failed to consider that the cadastral survey was a document prepared many decades prior to the organization of the new survey wherein all the features and configurations of the individual holdings had been properly depicted in a competent plan which none of the parties had challenged or disputed. 14. 14. Admittedly the record shows that when the old survey was relied by the petitioner no objection was raised by the respondents, namely, by the respondent No. 1 regarding its authenticity and genuineness. On the contrary the defence pleas advanced by the respondent were all around the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed its title to the suit property nor any document had been produced in respect of his contention that he owns the suit property for himself. Therefore since the petitioner did not own any property within the range of Survey No. 107, section 113 of the Code had been wrongly invoked by him to give a colour of a boundary dispute. The respondent has thus challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of the Deputy Collector to decide an issue which according to him was of the competence of the Civil Court only. In addition the respondent has also contended that the petitioner had never been in possession or enjoyment of holding No. 107/4 which was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the respondent along with other heirs. It was also sought to be contended by the respondent that the petitioner did not possess any coconut trees in the suit property and therefore after the promulgation of the record of rights based on possession of the parties there was no question of the petitioner claiming the inclusion of 25 sq. metres shown under Survey No. 107/1 being in the holding surveyed under No. 107/4. 15. Lastly it should not be overlooked also that the Tribunal while dealing with the second appeal was expected to interfere with the finding of the first Appellate Court only if substantial questions of law had been raised or were to exist and which required to be adjudicated so as to justify the unsettling of the finding arrived at by the Additional Deputy Collector on the point of the reliability of the old survey for the purpose of determination of the correct boundary disputed by the petitioner. 16. In the result I find merit in this petition which is therefore bound to be allowed. Hence the petition succeeds and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27th September, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment of the Additional Collector dated 24th February, 1987 is accordingly restored. Rule made absolute in the above terms with, however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****