Judgment: Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 and Ms. S. Pai Kir, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The above petition seeks to quash and set aside by a writ or certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari order or direction thereby quashing order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No.51/2006. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 22/06/2006 whereby the rival claims of the appellants and respondents were decided in respect of various survey numbers of the property situated in the village of Curca. 4. Respondents no.2 to 4 on the assumption that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Deputy Collector was passed in exercise of powers under Section 56 of the Land Revenue Code and that the Deputy Collector had exercised jurisdiction on the basis of delegation by the learned Collector preferred an appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 188 (c) of the said Code before the learned Administrative Tribunal. 5. The petitioners filed an application inter alia contending that the appeal itself was not maintainable as according to the petitioners, such appeal had to be filed in terms of the provisions of Section 188 (b) of the said Code to the learned Collector. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 26/08/2009 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition seeking to quash the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. During the course of the hearing of the above petition as there was no material on record to find out in what situation the Collector had proceeded to carry out such exercise, the learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to produce the notification pursuant to which the Collector has exercised such powers. The learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the said notification dated 5/09/2003 to disclose that such powers were in fact exercised in terms of Section 193 of the said Code. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the said notification dated 5/09/2003 to disclose that such powers were in fact exercised in terms of Section 193 of the said Code. 7. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the powers exercised by the learned Deputy Collector were in terms of the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code which inter alia permit such Authority to review the survey records. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on perusal of the said judgment passed by the learned Deputy Collector it is clearly manifested therein that the learned Deputy Collector has powers to dispose of the rival claims in respect of the said survey numbers in terms of the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the provisions of Section 193(1) and the proviso therein and pointed out that such exercise of power by Authorities or Survey Officer sub-ordinate to the Collector can be exercised only after such Collector obtains permission from the Government. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the observations of the learned Deputy Collector in the impugned judgment it cannot be disputed that the Collector has directed the Deputy Collector to exercise such powers under Section 193 of the said Code on obtaining the permission from the Government. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that considering that the Deputy Collector is a sub-divisional Officer subordinate to the Collector such appeal had to be filed in terms of Section 188 (b) of the said Code before the Collector. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Tribunal was as such not justified to reject the objections filed by the petitioners and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel has pointed out that though the Deputy Collector has observed that he was exercising powers under Section 193 of the said Code, nevertheless, what the Deputy Collector in fact has done was the revision of the survey records in terms of the provisions of Section 56 of the said Code. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel has pointed out that though the Deputy Collector has observed that he was exercising powers under Section 193 of the said Code, nevertheless, what the Deputy Collector in fact has done was the revision of the survey records in terms of the provisions of Section 56 of the said Code. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the provisions of Section 56 of the said Code and pointed out that such revision can be done only by the Collector. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through Section 6(2) of the said Code and pointed out that such powers by the Deputy Collector are on the basis of delegation by the Collector and, as such, the impugned judgment of the Deputy Collector is in fact to be considered as a judgment of the Collector. The learned Counsel has thereafter pointed out that merely because the Deputy Collector has observed that he was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 193 of the said Code, it cannot be accepted considering the exercise done by the Deputy Collector that such powers have been exercised in terms of the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 on perusal of the said notification produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out that on going through the recital therein the revision of the records could be done only in terms of Section 56 of the said Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the recital also established that what the Government directed the Collector was to carry out revision in terms of the Code and, as such, in such situation it cannot be accepted that the power was exercised under Section 193 of the Code, but according to the learned Counsel such powers can only be exercised by the Collector under Section 193 of the said Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the exercise done by the Deputy Collector and on reading the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code the only powers exercised by the Authorities was the revision of the records prepared in terms of Section 95 of the said Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the exercise done by the Deputy Collector and on reading the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code the only powers exercised by the Authorities was the revision of the records prepared in terms of Section 95 of the said Code. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and pointed out that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and considered the provisions of law to come to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the said respondents was in accordance with law. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the above petition be rejected. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the records. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned Deputy Collector was in terms of the provisions of Section 193 of the said Code or in terms of the provisions of Section 56 of the said Code as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to 2 to 4. 10. Section 193(1) of the said Code provides thus: “193. Review of orders — (1) The Tribunal or revenue or survey officer may, either on its or his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself or himself or by any of its or his predecessors-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as it or he thinks fit: Provided that a revenue officer subordinate to the Collector or Settlement Officer or Superintendent of surveys shall, before reviewing any order under this section, obtain the permission of the Collector or Director of Settlement and Land Records, as the case may be, and the Collector or the Director of Settlement and Land Records shall, before reviewing an order passed by any of his predecessors-in-office, obtain the permission of the Government, if the review is to be made on a ground other than that of clerical mistake.” 11. On going through the proviso to Section 193(1) it clearly contemplates that the review of the orders can be done only by Authorities which are sub-ordinate to the Collector. But however, such exercise can be done by the Collector only after obtaining a permission from the Government. On going through the proviso to Section 193(1) it clearly contemplates that the review of the orders can be done only by Authorities which are sub-ordinate to the Collector. But however, such exercise can be done by the Collector only after obtaining a permission from the Government. In the present case, on going through the notification produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 dated 5/09/2003, it clearly stipulates that the Government has exercised powers under Section 193 of the said Code to permit the Collector to proceed to review the survey records which are to be maintained in terms of Section 95 of the said Code. Considering the said notification, it cannot be accepted that the power which has been exercised by the Collector was in terms of the provisions of Section 56 of the said Code. In fact, after obtaining the said permission in terms of the proviso to Section 193(1) of the said Code by the said notification dated 5/09/2003, the Collector has directed the Deputy Collector to proceed to exercise the powers of review in terms of the provisions of Section 193 of the said code. Apart from that, on perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Collector which has been impugned by the respondents no.2 to 4 there is a specific observation therein to show that even the Deputy Collector was aware of the fact that he was exercising powers under Section 193 of the said Code pursuant to the direction of the Collector. In view of the said observations, I find that the contentions of Shri Menees, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 to the effect that the Collector has exercised powers to revision in terms of provisions of Section 56 of the said Code cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that in case revision was done in terms of Section 56 of the said Code, such powers can only be exercised by the Collector and the Deputy Collector would exercise such powers on the delegation by the Collector. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, such situation does not arise in view of the notification which clearly provides that the powers are exercised by the Collector in terms of Section 193 of the said Code. 12. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, such situation does not arise in view of the notification which clearly provides that the powers are exercised by the Collector in terms of Section 193 of the said Code. 12. The remaining contentions of Shri Menezes, learned Counsel to the effect that Deputy Collector has extended the jurisdiction whilst passing the impugned judgment and that power of review are only on judicial matters is a matter which touches the merits of the challenge to the impugned judgment passed by the Deputy Collector. As the impugned judgment has not decided the appeal on merits, I find that such contentions can always be raised by the respondents in the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the exercise of power by the Deputy Collector in the appeal in accordance with law. Keeping all these contentions of Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 open, I find that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 26/08/2009 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appeal memo preferred by the respondents no.2 to 4 would have to be returned to enable them to file such appeal before the competent Authority in terms of Section 188 (b) of the said Act. 13. Subject to the above, the impugned order dated 26/08/2009 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The learned Administrative Tribunal is directed to return the appeal memo filed by respondents no.2 to 4 to enable them to present such appeal before the competent Authority. Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 has pointed out that by returning the appeal memo and allowing the respondents to present the said appeal before the competent Authority would affect the period of limitation prescribed under the Code to prefer an appeal before such Appellate Authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Appellate Authority would entertain the said appeal in case such appeal memo is presented before the Appellate Authority within a period of 15 days from the date the appeal memo is returned to the respondents no.2 to 4. 14. In the light of the observations made herein above and subject to the above, rule is made absolute in the above terms.