JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:--- The petitioners challenge the judgment and Order dated 29-4-97 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Applications No. 32/94, 33/94 and 42/94. By the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector at Panaji in relation to Survey No. 280/1 situated at Caranzalem. 2.The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners purchased certain area of land from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais during the period from 1980 to 1990 in different pieces of land. Simultaneously, respondent No. 1 also purchased certain area from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais by deed dated 9-11-88. Thereafter by an application dated 17-4-1989 the respondent No. 1 applied for partitioning of the holdings and allotment of separate survey number for the pieces of land purchased by her and which was otherwise forming part of the plots of land bearing Survey Nos. 280/1 and 256/1. Necessary order in that regard was passed on 16-8-89, but the petitioners were not heard in the matter before passing the said order. In fact, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were never notified about the said proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 and they learnt about the same only after receipt of summons in Civil Suit No. 39/94/D filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. Having learnt about the same, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the said order and thereafter filed the applications before the Administrative Tribunal on 16-3- 1994 for leave to appeal against the said order of the Deputy Collector in the said partition proceedings. The tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said applications on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of the survey numbers when Patriarcado das Indias Orientais sought partition of the plots and therefore in view of provisions contained in section 61 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968, the petitioners were not required to be heard. 3.Upon hearing Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. 3.Upon hearing Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.B. D'Costa, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the name of the original petitioner No. 1 was very much available in the Record of Rights in relation to the property in question from 3-4-1989 i.e. prior to the passing of the order by the Deputy Collector in the partition proceedings. Moreover, the name of the petitioner No. 2 came to be entered in the occupants column of the Record of Rights of the property in question sometimes on 5th October, 1989. Moreover, the entry in favour of the original petitioner No. 1 was initially in pencil with a note that the said entry was yet to be finalised. 4.It is the contention of Advocate A. Agni that in terms of section 61(3) of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 the authority acting thereunder is duty bound to hear all the co-holders of the property before passing any order for partition and once it is not in dispute that the petitioners were not heard in the matter even though they are co-holders, the petitioners were entitled for leave to appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector within the period of limitation commencing from the date of knowledge of the said order. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of [Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (In Liquidation)]1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 374. 5.On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Advocate Shri D'Costa that the hearing of the co-holders contemplated under section 61(3) of the Land Revenue Code is restricted to those persons whose names figure in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights in relation to the concerned property and undisputedly the names of the petitioners were not figuring in the said records in relation to the property in question at the time the order was passed by the Deputy Collector and therefore there is no justification for grant of leave to the petitioners to file appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector and in that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal. 6.It cannot be disputed that the tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of either of the survey numbers in question. Moreover, the records placed before me do not disclose any such admission by any of the petitioners at any stage of the matter. It is not known from where the tribunal could draw a conclusion that the petitioners have admitted that they are not the co-holders of the property in question. Much to the contrary, the applications and appeals filed by the original petitioners clearly disclose that they had stated in no uncertain terms that they are owners of the plot forming part of Survey No. 280/1. Those averments were not countered or denied by the respondent No. 1 while contesting the proceedings for leave to appeal before the tribunal. Being so, one fails to understand as to from where the tribunal was able to draw an inference regarding alleged admission on the part of the petitioners that they were not co-holders of the property in question. 7.It is the contention of Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 that the above referred conclusion has been arrived at by the tribunal on the basis of absence of entry in favour of the petitioners in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights in respect of property bearing Survey No. 280/1. Drawing my attention to a copy of the Record of Rights certificate which was placed before the tribunal, and which disclose that the entry in favour of the original petitioner No. 1 was yet to be finalised and the name of the petitioner No. 2 disclose that the same was entered on 5-10-1989 i.e. much after the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the learned Advocate submitted that the tribunal was justified in concluding that there was no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are not the co-holders of the property bearing Survey No. 280/1 in terms of the said Record of Rights entry. It is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. The provisions contained in section 61(3) do not refer to the expression "occupants" but refers to the expression "co-holders". It is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. The provisions contained in section 61(3) do not refer to the expression "occupants" but refers to the expression "co-holders". Indeed sub-section (3) of section 61 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 reads thus:- "(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Collector may, after hearing the co-holders, divide the holding and apportion the assessment of the holding in accordance with the rules made by the Government under this Code." "Holder" has been defined in section 2(16) to mean a person lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. The expression 'occupant' has been defined in section 2 (24) to mean a holder in actual possession of land, other than a tenant or Government lessee; provided that, where a holder in actual possession is a tenant, the land holder shall be deemed to be the occupant. It cannot be forgotten that the Record of Rights also contain a column in relation to " tenancy rights" as well as in relation to "other rights". 8.On plain reading of section 61(3) it is evident that the authority acting under section 61 has to hear all the co-holders before disposing the application for partition. It stands to reason because an immovable property cannot be partitioned without hearing all the co-owners of the property since each and every co-owner will have undivided right over every centimetre of land till and until the entire property is partitioned in loco in terms of shares of the co-owners. It is therefore necessary for a person approaching the authority for partition of holdings under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code to disclose all the names of the co-holders before seeking necessary order of partition. The certificate of Record of Rights is not a document or title. Mere registration of name in Record of Rights does not confer title of ownership of a property. Being so, if a party chooses to disclose only those names which figure in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights, and chooses to suppress the names of other co-holders of the property, he certainly takes the risk of inviting an incomplete adjudication by the authority acting under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. Being so, if a party chooses to disclose only those names which figure in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights, and chooses to suppress the names of other co-holders of the property, he certainly takes the risk of inviting an incomplete adjudication by the authority acting under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. 9.Once it is prima facie established that the petitioners are the co-holders of the property bearing Survey No. 280/1 or any part thereof, it goes without saying that in case of partition of such plot, all the co-holders of such plot would be necessary parties to the partition proceedings. Viewed from this angle, it was abundantly clear that the petitioners had made out a clear case justifying grant of leave to appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector passed on 6-8-1989 in relation to Survey No. 280/1. 10.Indeed, the Apex Court in Smt Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (supra) has clearly held that:- " If there was default on their part in not following the correct procedure it is wholly incomprehensible how the appellant could be deprived of her right to get her grievance redressed by filing an appeal against the order which had been made in her absence and without her knowledge. It would be a travesty of justice if a party is driven to file a suit which would involve long and cumbersome procedure when an order has been made directly affecting that party and redress can be had by filing an appeal which is permitted by law. It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment." 11.In the result therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners' applications for leave to appeal are to be allowed. 12.Hence the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector, Panaji, in relation to Survey No. 280/1 are hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. 12.Hence the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector, Panaji, in relation to Survey No. 280/1 are hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ***** 1999(3) Bom.C.R. 628 (PANAJI BENCH) Before: R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. Gaspar Fernandes since deceased through legal heirs another..... Petitioners. Versus Smt. Fatima S. Barreto others..... Respondents. Writ Petition No. 369 of 1997, decided on 12-3-1999. Goa, Daman Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, Secs. 613 2(16)---Partition of land---Validity---Partition of land effected without hearing the purchaser (petitioner), on the ground that they were not original co-holders of land---Held, word co-holder is of wide import and would include all affected persons including tenants on the land. Authority effecting the partition is bound to hear all of them in respect of their rights. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of either of the survey numbers in question. Moreover, the records placed before Court does not disclose any such admission by any of the petitioners at any stage of the matter. It is not known from where the tribunal could draw a conclusion that the petitioners have admitted that they are not the co-holders of the property in question. "Holder" defined in section 2(16) of the Goa, Daman Diu Land Revenue Code to mean a person lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. The expression 'occupant' defined in section 2(24) to mean a holder in actual possession of land, other than a tenant or Government lessee; provided that, where a holder in actual possession is a tenant, the land holder shall be deemed to be the occupant. It cannot be forgotten that the Record of Rights also contain a column in relation to " tenancy rights" as well as in relation to "other rights." On plain reading of section 61(3) of the Goa, Daman Diu Land Revenue Code it is evident that the authority acting under section 61 has to hear all the co-holders before disposing the application for partition. It stands to reason because an immovable property cannot be partitioned without hearing all the co-owners of the property since each and every co-owner will have undivided right over every centimetre of land till and until the entire property is partitioned in loco in terms of shares of the co-owners. (Paras 6 8) Cases referred : 1. Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 374. Advocates appeared : Mrs. A.A. Agni, for the petitioners. M.B. D'Costa with A. Monteiro, for the respondent No. 1. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:--- The petitioners challenge the judgment and Order dated 29-4-97 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Applications No. 32/94, 33/94 and 42/94. By the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector at Panaji in relation to Survey No. 280/1 situated at Caranzalem. 2.The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners purchased certain area of land from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais during the period from 1980 to 1990 in different pieces of land. Simultaneously, respondent No. 1 also purchased certain area from Patriarcado das Indias Orientais by deed dated 9-11-88. Thereafter by an application dated 17-4-1989 the respondent No. 1 applied for partitioning of the holdings and allotment of separate survey number for the pieces of land purchased by her and which was otherwise forming part of the plots of land bearing Survey Nos. 280/1 and 256/1. Necessary order in that regard was passed on 16-8-89, but the petitioners were not heard in the matter before passing the said order. In fact, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were never notified about the said proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 and they learnt about the same only after receipt of summons in Civil Suit No. 39/94/D filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2. Having learnt about the same, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the said order and thereafter filed the applications before the Administrative Tribunal on 16-3- 1994 for leave to appeal against the said order of the Deputy Collector in the said partition proceedings. Having learnt about the same, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the said order and thereafter filed the applications before the Administrative Tribunal on 16-3- 1994 for leave to appeal against the said order of the Deputy Collector in the said partition proceedings. The tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said applications on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of the survey numbers when Patriarcado das Indias Orientais sought partition of the plots and therefore in view of provisions contained in section 61 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968, the petitioners were not required to be heard. 3.Upon hearing Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.B. D'Costa, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the name of the original petitioner No. 1 was very much available in the Record of Rights in relation to the property in question from 3-4-1989 i.e. prior to the passing of the order by the Deputy Collector in the partition proceedings. Moreover, the name of the petitioner No. 2 came to be entered in the occupants column of the Record of Rights of the property in question sometimes on 5th October, 1989. Moreover, the entry in favour of the original petitioner No. 1 was initially in pencil with a note that the said entry was yet to be finalised. 4.It is the contention of Advocate A. Agni that in terms of section 61(3) of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 the authority acting thereunder is duty bound to hear all the co-holders of the property before passing any order for partition and once it is not in dispute that the petitioners were not heard in the matter even though they are co-holders, the petitioners were entitled for leave to appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector within the period of limitation commencing from the date of knowledge of the said order. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of [Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (In Liquidation)]1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 374. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of [Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (In Liquidation)]1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 374. 5.On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Advocate Shri D'Costa that the hearing of the co-holders contemplated under section 61(3) of the Land Revenue Code is restricted to those persons whose names figure in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights in relation to the concerned property and undisputedly the names of the petitioners were not figuring in the said records in relation to the property in question at the time the order was passed by the Deputy Collector and therefore there is no justification for grant of leave to the petitioners to file appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector and in that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal. 6.It cannot be disputed that the tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that admittedly the petitioners were not co-holders of either of the survey numbers in question. Moreover, the records placed before me do not disclose any such admission by any of the petitioners at any stage of the matter. It is not known from where the tribunal could draw a conclusion that the petitioners have admitted that they are not the co-holders of the property in question. Much to the contrary, the applications and appeals filed by the original petitioners clearly disclose that they had stated in no uncertain terms that they are owners of the plot forming part of Survey No. 280/1. Those averments were not countered or denied by the respondent No. 1 while contesting the proceedings for leave to appeal before the tribunal. Being so, one fails to understand as to from where the tribunal was able to draw an inference regarding alleged admission on the part of the petitioners that they were not co-holders of the property in question. 7.It is the contention of Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 that the above referred conclusion has been arrived at by the tribunal on the basis of absence of entry in favour of the petitioners in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights in respect of property bearing Survey No. 280/1. 7.It is the contention of Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 that the above referred conclusion has been arrived at by the tribunal on the basis of absence of entry in favour of the petitioners in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights in respect of property bearing Survey No. 280/1. Drawing my attention to a copy of the Record of Rights certificate which was placed before the tribunal, and which disclose that the entry in favour of the original petitioner No. 1 was yet to be finalised and the name of the petitioner No. 2 disclose that the same was entered on 5-10-1989 i.e. much after the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the learned Advocate submitted that the tribunal was justified in concluding that there was no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are not the co-holders of the property bearing Survey No. 280/1 in terms of the said Record of Rights entry. It is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. The provisions contained in section 61(3) do not refer to the expression "occupants" but refers to the expression "co-holders". Indeed sub-section (3) of section 61 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 reads thus:- "(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Collector may, after hearing the co-holders, divide the holding and apportion the assessment of the holding in accordance with the rules made by the Government under this Code." "Holder" has been defined in section 2(16) to mean a person lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. The expression 'occupant' has been defined in section 2 (24) to mean a holder in actual possession of land, other than a tenant or Government lessee; provided that, where a holder in actual possession is a tenant, the land holder shall be deemed to be the occupant. It cannot be forgotten that the Record of Rights also contain a column in relation to " tenancy rights" as well as in relation to "other rights". 8.On plain reading of section 61(3) it is evident that the authority acting under section 61 has to hear all the co-holders before disposing the application for partition. It cannot be forgotten that the Record of Rights also contain a column in relation to " tenancy rights" as well as in relation to "other rights". 8.On plain reading of section 61(3) it is evident that the authority acting under section 61 has to hear all the co-holders before disposing the application for partition. It stands to reason because an immovable property cannot be partitioned without hearing all the co-owners of the property since each and every co-owner will have undivided right over every centimetre of land till and until the entire property is partitioned in loco in terms of shares of the co-owners. It is therefore necessary for a person approaching the authority for partition of holdings under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code to disclose all the names of the co-holders before seeking necessary order of partition. The certificate of Record of Rights is not a document or title. Mere registration of name in Record of Rights does not confer title of ownership of a property. Being so, if a party chooses to disclose only those names which figure in the occupants' column of the Record of Rights, and chooses to suppress the names of other co-holders of the property, he certainly takes the risk of inviting an incomplete adjudication by the authority acting under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. 9.Once it is prima facie established that the petitioners are the co-holders of the property bearing Survey No. 280/1 or any part thereof, it goes without saying that in case of partition of such plot, all the co-holders of such plot would be necessary parties to the partition proceedings. Viewed from this angle, it was abundantly clear that the petitioners had made out a clear case justifying grant of leave to appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector passed on 6-8-1989 in relation to Survey No. 280/1. 10.Indeed, the Apex Court in Smt Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (supra) has clearly held that:- " If there was default on their part in not following the correct procedure it is wholly incomprehensible how the appellant could be deprived of her right to get her grievance redressed by filing an appeal against the order which had been made in her absence and without her knowledge. It would be a travesty of justice if a party is driven to file a suit which would involve long and cumbersome procedure when an order has been made directly affecting that party and redress can be had by filing an appeal which is permitted by law. It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment." 11.In the result therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners' applications for leave to appeal are to be allowed. 12.Hence the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the Order dated 16-8-1989 of the Deputy Collector, Panaji, in relation to Survey No. 280/1 are hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *****