Judgment : 1. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa on 10/02/2014, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application before the Deputy Collector on 02/02/1998 for carrying out resurvey under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 in respect of the land bearing old cadastral survey no. 13 which was in his possession. The reason being that, at the time of cadastral survey, demarcation of the land was not done properly and there was no proper calculation of the area and the old cadastral survey no. 13 was incorrectly split out into three new survey nos. 65/3, 62/2(part) and 67/01(part). 3. This application was filed by the petitioner against seven parties, who are respondent nos. 2 to 8, to the present petition. The interested party who is now respondent no.1, was joined as respondent no.8 to the said application after her application to join as necessary party was granted. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was opposed by the interested party, respondent no.1 to this petition. She submitted that she had purchased part of the property bearing survey no. 62/2 and 65/2 of village Assagao by virtue of Deed of Sale dated 15/11/1995 from respondent no. 2. 4. Learned Deputy Collector, Mapusa after hearing all the contesting parties, allowed the application and directed the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Panaji, to resurvey and demarcate the plot by his order dated 27/03/2000. 5. This order was challenged by the aggrieved interested party, the respondent no.1, by filing Land Revenue Appeal No.71/2000 before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa. During the pendency of the appeal, no stay to the said order passed on 27/03/2000 was granted by the Administrative Tribunal. As a result, this order came to be implemented. Resurvey was done and demarcation as per old survey no. 13 was carried out. Report of the Director of Settlement and Land Records carrying out resurvey was confirmed leading to revision of the plan and correction of the area of the plots. The survey records on that basis were also corrected. 6. Later on, in the year 2014, Land Revenue Appeal came up for final hearing. 13 was carried out. Report of the Director of Settlement and Land Records carrying out resurvey was confirmed leading to revision of the plan and correction of the area of the plots. The survey records on that basis were also corrected. 6. Later on, in the year 2014, Land Revenue Appeal came up for final hearing. Learned President, upon giving of concession by learned Advocate for the petitioner for remand of the matter in view of the submission of the respondent no.1 that proper opportunity was not given to her, partly allowed the appeal by his order passed on 10/2/2014. Learned President quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 27/3/2000 read with addendum dated 19/4/2000 passed by Deputy Collector, Mapusa directing resurvey of the plot of land in question. Learned President also directed to delete the corrected entry and bring the record to its original position in respect of the survey No. 62/2 in the record of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records. 7. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1. 9. Notice against the remaining respondents was dispensed with as per order passed by this Court on 29/4/2014. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1, I have carefully gone through the impugned order and paper book of this Writ Petition. 10. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is: Whether the impugned order is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference by this Court? 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the first place, there was no concession given by the Advocate for petitioner in remanding of the matter to the Court of Deputy Collector on the ground that no proper opportunity was given to respondent no.1 and so he further submits, order as passed by the learned President is absolutely illegal and perverse. 12. Learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1 submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved on this ground, proper remedy for him is to file a review application before the authority i.e. Administrate Tribunal, Goa, as per the settled law and therefore, this petition is not maintainable on this count itself. 13. Learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1 is right. 12. Learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1 submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved on this ground, proper remedy for him is to file a review application before the authority i.e. Administrate Tribunal, Goa, as per the settled law and therefore, this petition is not maintainable on this count itself. 13. Learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1 is right. If there is an error in the impugned order about mentioning of a fact which did not exist, it would be an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, proper remedy to correct the error would be an application for review of the same. That is the settled law. The petitioner having not availed of the same, now cannot be heard in this regard. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if it is presumed, just for the sake of argument, that there was concession in remand of the matter, the concession extended only to quashing and setting aside of the judgment impugned in the Administrative Tribunal Appeal and not beyond that. He submits that by restoring the status quo ante, in respect of which no concession had been given, the learned President has exceeded his jurisdiction and committed serious illegality. He submits that learned President ought to have considered the fact that there was no stay in operation during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, order dated 27/3/2000 read with order dated 19/4/2000 came to be implemented and entries in the survey records got corrected accordingly. 15. Learned counsel further submits that by the said direction, learned President has caused a great prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, who has acquired the plot of land in question after resurvey and demarcation thereof was carried out as per the order of the Deputy Collector. According to him, petitioner ought to have been heard by learned President on the point of restoration of the original position in respect of survey no.62/2 in the survey records. Therefore, such an order is absolutely illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, so submits the learned counsel. 16. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand argues that pendency of the appeal proceedings itself indicates that rights of the parties were not settled finally and they were subject to the result of the revenue appeal. Therefore, such an order is absolutely illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, so submits the learned counsel. 16. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand argues that pendency of the appeal proceedings itself indicates that rights of the parties were not settled finally and they were subject to the result of the revenue appeal. He further submits that if the original order directing resurvey and demarcation was quashed and set aside, whatever had been done in pursuance of that order could also have not been allowed to be continued and therefore, the impugned order in this regard is not illegal. He also submits that since rights of the parties were not finally settled, there is no question of causing of any prejudice to the petitioner. 14. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the various notices issued to all the parties including interested party at different stage of the proceedings initiated for resurvey and demarcation of the plot of land in question and also the order finalising the report of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records passed on 5/12/2000, in order to show as to how sufficient opportunity has been given to respondent no.1 and as to how respondent no.1 did not avail of the same before resurvey report was finalised by the Deputy Collector. He submits that against this background, it was all the more necessary for learned President to have heard the petitioner before ordering restoration of the original position of survey no. 62/2 in the survey record. He also submits that this order has resulted in causing of prejudice to the petitioner who has altered his position on the basis of the entries by purchasing from original the vendor his entire share under survey no. 62/2A(new) by paying a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) and also amending his pleadings in a pending civil suit suitably. 16. There can no doubt about the issuance of notices at various stages to respondent no.1 and also to what the petitioner has done on the basis of corrected entries in the survey records. It may also amount to altering his position. But, the same was not on the basis of any promise or assurance given by respondent no.1. 16. There can no doubt about the issuance of notices at various stages to respondent no.1 and also to what the petitioner has done on the basis of corrected entries in the survey records. It may also amount to altering his position. But, the same was not on the basis of any promise or assurance given by respondent no.1. The alteration of the situation of the petitioner was with the knowledge that the revenue appeal was pending before the Administrative Tribunal and the result of the appeal could go either way. In other words, whatever has been done so far by, by the petitioner, the same was done with full knowledge of the risk involved therein and therefore, only because respondent no.1 had wasted the opportunity to oppose the resurvey that was being carried out in pursuance of the order impugned in the appeal, it would not mean that respondent no.1 had acquiesced in the resurvey and demarcation done in accordance with it. In any case, resurvey itself was founded on an order that was quashed and set aside and with that source having run dry, it could not survive anymore and was rightly declared to be so by the learned President. 17. There was also no need for the learned President to have given any independent hearing to the petitioner on the aspect of issuance of directions regarding restoration of the status quo ante as restoration of the original position after setting aside of the basic order was inevitably, a logical consequence. If it was not done, it would have resulted in an anomalous situation of having entries in the survey records which had no legal and logical claim to be there. Such entries if allowed to be maintained in the survey record may also have led to some or other misuse by some interested persons, thereby creating complications in the matter. On the other hand, by removal of such entries, ostensibly no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as he has already been given an opportunity to prove his case in the matter. 18. It can also not be ignored that the order of the learned President has been challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is extra ordinary in its nature. 18. It can also not be ignored that the order of the learned President has been challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is extra ordinary in its nature. It can be exercised only in exceptional cases, under great care and caution when the order impugned is absolutely illegal, perverse or against well settled principles of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Jaisinghand others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010)9 SCC 385 , referred to me by learned Senior counsel, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being supervisory in nature, is wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is also observed that while exercising such a jurisdiction the High Court needs to bear in mind the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in paragraph 15 are relevant in this regard and are reproduced thus:- The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.” 19. From the discussion made in earlier paragraphs, it would be clear that the order impugned herein is passed by learned President by following established canons of law and, therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse or in ignorance of well settled provisions of law. It calls for no interference. The point is accordingly answered as in the negative. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it stands dismissed. 21. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.