Judgment Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, waives service. 3. The short point which comes for consideration in the above Writ Petitioners is as to whether the Revisional Court whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 201-B of the Panchayat Raj Act, is bound to scrutinize every material on record while deciding a revision preferred in terms of the provisions of the said Act. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has raised a serious grievance to the effect that the dispute before the Revisional Court was whether the disputed structures has been recently constructed or whether such constructions was existing at a much prior date and whether they were duly sanctioned by the Village Panchayat. It is the contention of Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel, that during the course of the proceedings, the Petitioners had relied upon crucial documents including the house tax receipts of the year 1993, electricity connection bills from the year 1987, the ration card and other documentary evidence to establish that the disputed house was in existence much prior to the date when allegations were made against the Petitioners that they have put up a new structure. Learned Counsel further pointed out that with regard to the cow shed which is subject matter of Writ Petition no. 529/2012, the Petitioners had produced a permission from the local Panchayat for the purpose of reconstruction/repairs of the cow shed on 23.04.1999. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though it is well settled that the Court whilst hearing a revision, proceeds only to find out whether there is a jurisdictional error in the orders impugned, nevertheless, non-consideration of document produced by the Petitioners and the effects thereof itself vitiates the impugned Orders dated 07.07.2012. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Orders and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all considered the said documents which, according to him, were material to decide the matter in controversy. 5. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Orders and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all considered the said documents which, according to him, were material to decide the matter in controversy. 5. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2, has pointed out that mere non-consideration of such documents would not lead to a jurisdictional error committed by the authorities below which would call for interference by the Revisional Court. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the dispute before the authorities was as to whether the Petitioners had a due sanction from the Village Panchayat with regard to the disputed structures and, once such sanction was not been produced, the Revisional Court was justified not to interfere with the impugned Order by the authorities below. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the documents produced by the Petitioners by itself do not establish the legality of the construction of the disputed structure. Learned Counsel as such submits that the Petitioner be rejected. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Though it is well settled that a Revisonal Court would interfere in the orders impugned only in cases in which there are jurisdictional errors committed by the authorities below nevertheless, on perusal of the Order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat, I find that the said authorities had also not considered the said documents. Whether the said documents were material or relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute in controversy is a matter which the Revisional Court would have to consider whilst passing the impugned Orders. The impact of such documents in the matter in dispute would have to be considered by the Revisional Court whilst assessing whether the authorities have committed any jurisdictional error. Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 was unable to point out any discussion about the effect of the documents produced, in the impugned orders. 7. Without going into the rival contentions, I find in the interest of justice, that the impugned Orders passed by the Revisional Court be quashed and set aside and the Revision Petition be restored to the Revisional Court to decide afresh in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following: (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 8. In view of the above, I pass the following: (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). (ii) Revision Petition nos. 25/2011 and 26/2011 are restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao. (iii) The learned District Judge is directed to decide both the Revisions afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, on 10.12.2012 at 10.00 a.m. (vii) Petition is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. (viii) Authenticated copy of this Order be issued to the parties.