JUDGMENT 1. This petition is directed against the order passed on 13.1.2014 by Additional President, Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.102/2014 in Land Revenue Appeal No.3/2014. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land admeasuring 10,09,877 square metres (hereinafter referred to as “said property”). Petitioner has purchased the said property which forms a part of total land having area of approximately 28,00,000 square metres in survey no.328/1 of village Loliem, Goa. Petitioner's name was duly mutated in form I and XIV of survey no.32 of village Loliem. After name of petitioner was mutated in form I and XIV of village Loliem Goa, as per procedure, petitioner applied to the Deputy Collector and SDO for partition of the suit property out of total area in survey no.328/1 of village Loliem, Goa. The partition proceedings were registered under No.LRC/Part/228/2011/1179. Petitioner has submitted that in the partition proceedings that were initiated by the Deputy Collector and SDO, notices were issued to about 117 persons which included one Mr. Janardhan Nilcanta Bhat, who was respondent no.4 in the said partition proceedings. Objections were raised by some of them and present respondent was one of those objectors. 3. Learned Deputy Collector and SDO, after hearing and examining the objections filed by the concerned parties including the respondent herein and by following due process as required under the law, as submitted by the petitioner, dismissed all the objections and allowed the application directing Inspector of Survey-and Land Records, Quepem, to partition the said property belonging to the petitioner by his order dated 25.7.2013. 4. The petitioner submits that in pursuance of the said partition order, the Deputy Collector initiated necessary process for partitioning of the said property, when, on 17.10.2013, the petitioner received a copy of the order passed on 3.10.2013 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.226/13 in Land Revenue Appeal No.49/2013 by the Administrative Tribunal staying the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 25.7.2013. Petitioner challenged the said stay order by filing a Writ Petition being No.718/2013. After hearing both the sides, this Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal in MCA No.226/2013. Petitioner challenged the said stay order by filing a Writ Petition being No.718/2013. After hearing both the sides, this Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal in MCA No.226/2013. Learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal was directed to dispose of the said MCA No.226/2013 by giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides within a period of three months from the date of the order. Thus, Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 27.11.2013. 5. The petitioner submits that as the partition order dated 25.7.2013 became operative after removal of the stay over it granted by the Additional President of Administrative Tribunal, further proceedings with regard to confirming of the partition of the property were initiated by the Deputy Collector and by an order passed on 4.12.2013, the Deputy Collector confirmed the partition order. By another order passed on the same day, the Deputy Collector revised partition plan and entries in form IV prepared by Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Quepem and directed him to cause correction of the Gat book accordingly. He also directed Mamlatdar to correct the survey record of survey no.328/1 of village Loliem, of Canacona Taluka in terms of the confirmation of revised partition plan and entries in form IV. 6. The respondent challenged the said order passed on 4.12.2013 by preferring an appeal bearing LRA No.3/2014 before the Additional President of Administrative Tribunal. He also filed MCA bearing No.102/2014 seeking stay of final order of partition passed on 4.12.2013. 7. Learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal by his order passed on 13.1.2014, granted ex-parte stay to the order passed on 4.12.2013 confirming the partition by the Deputy Collector. It is this order which has been challenged in this Writ Petition. 8. I have heard Shri Surendra G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 10. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 11. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 12. Shri Dessai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned herein is perverse and has been passed without any jurisdiction and, as such, is illegal. 9. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 10. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 11. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 12. Shri Dessai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned herein is perverse and has been passed without any jurisdiction and, as such, is illegal. He submits that the order dated 4.12.2013 having been passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 118 of the Goa Daman Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 ( hereafter called as “GLRC, 1968” for short) is appealable before the Collector and not before any Administrative Tribunal and, as such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He also submits that while confirming the partition, the Deputy Collector has followed the procedure as laid down in Rules 5 to 7 of the Goa Land Revenue (Partition of Holding Rules), 1969 (hereinafter called as “the Partition Rules, 1969”) and has executed the partition and, therefore, nothing has remained to be executed further in this matter. He has further submitted that under Section 196 of the GLRC, 1968 stay of execution of an order challenged can be granted and when the order is already executed, question of staying execution would not arise. According to him, the order dated 4.12.2013 itself, by confirming the partition amounted to execution of partition and it being executory in nature, there was nothing left which could have been stayed by the Administrative Tribunal. 13. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent in reply has submitted that power of partitioning of the property is vested in Collector and Deputy Collector exercises this power upon delegation of authority by Collector to him and therefore, when he passes a partition order, what he does actually is exercise of delegated authority on behalf of the Collector and, as such, in effect the order would be an order passed by Collector himself under Section 168 of GLRC, 1968. An appeal lies to the Tribunal against an order passed by the Collector. Therefore, he submits, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without any jurisdiction. An appeal lies to the Tribunal against an order passed by the Collector. Therefore, he submits, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without any jurisdiction. He further submits that a plain reading of the order passed on 4.12.2013, which has been challenged in the appeal before the Administrative Tribunal, would sufficiently indicate that order is yet to take effect and is yet to be executed and, as such, can very well be stayed in the appropriate proceedings. He further submits that an executory order is an order which is to be performed at future time and since, the order passed on 4.12.2013 had not taken full effect, and also it being completely illegal, it was rightly stayed by the learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal. 14. In the instant case, the dispute revolves around the partition order passed by the Deputy Collector on 25.7.2013 which has been challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa vide LRA No.49/2013. The stay order passed in this appeal on 3.10.2013 in MCA No.226/2013 has been quashed and set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.718/2013 on 27.11.2013 and this Court has directed the Tribunal to dispose of the said application after granting fresh hearing to the parties. 15. The order impugned herein is passed in MCA No.102/2014 filed in another appeal preferred before the Administrative Tribunal bearing LRA No.3/2014 against the order dated 4.12.2013 which confirmed the partition order dated 25.7.2013. MCA bearing No.102/2014 is also yet to be finally disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the impugned order is the off-shoot of same partition proceedings in which order dated 25.7.2013 has been passed and in respect of which LRA No.49/2013 and MCA no.226/2013 are pending. 16. The challenges raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction and competency of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and grant stay in the matter are the questions which can also be raised before the Tribunal. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same partition proceedings and pending before the Administrative Tribunal, it would be a just and proper that these questions are left open for the Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate upon after hearing the rival parties. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same partition proceedings and pending before the Administrative Tribunal, it would be a just and proper that these questions are left open for the Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate upon after hearing the rival parties. If the appeals had not remained pending before the Tribunal and if there had been no order passed by this Court earlier on 27.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.718/2013 directing the Tribunal to decide and dispose of MCA No.226/2013 in accordance with law within the period stipulated therein, it would have been appropriate for this Court to deal with the challenges so raised by the petitioner. Addressing these issues and giving any determination on them by this Court is likely to prejudice the rights of both the parties before the Administrative Tribunal and therefore, this Court does not propose to deal with the same at this stage. 17. The next contention of Shri Dessai, learned Senior Counsel is that when this Court had quashed and set aside the stay order of Administrative Tribunal dated 3.10.2013 and when the final partition order had been passed absolutely in accordance with law, the Tribunal ought not to have exercised its discretion in granting stay of final partition order dated 4.12.2013 without making an attempt to decide the earlier application for grant of stay being MCA No. 226/2013. According to him, merely because another appeal has been filed by the respondent, the Administrative Tribunal could not have stayed the final partition order dated 4.12.2013 as filing of another appeal was a ruse to get over the difficulty created after vacation of earlier stay order by this Court. He also submits that the impugned order dated 13.1.2014 is contemptuous of the authority of the High Court and is perverse and illegal which needs to be set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply has submitted that the petitioner has not approached the High Court with clean hands and that he has suppressed some material facts from the Court. He submits that record and proceedings of the case were sent by the High Court to the Deputy Collector on the request of the petitioner when the Writ petition No.718/2013 was disposed of by this Court on 27.11.2013. He submits that record and proceedings of the case were sent by the High Court to the Deputy Collector on the request of the petitioner when the Writ petition No.718/2013 was disposed of by this Court on 27.11.2013. He submits that at that time what appeared to be an innocuous request of the petitioner later on turned out to be a part of well designed plan to preempt the order of Administrative Tribunal that was to be passed by it in MCA No.226 of 2013 after hearing the parties. He submits that by the order passed on 27.11.2013 in Writ Petition no. 718/2013, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal on 12.12.2013 at 10.30am. He further submits that the petitioner hurriedly got the partition proceedings re-opened and got the Deputy Collector pass the final order of partition on 4.12.2013, knowing fully well that the application filed by the respondent seeking stay of the original partition order was pending adjudication and as directed by the High Court it was to be made by the Administrative Tribunal expeditiously. He further submits that the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 4.12.2013 confirming the partition order of 25.7.2013 was passed in collusion with the petitioner and was intended to infructuate the appeal bearing LRA No.49/2013 and MCA No.226/2013 pending before the Administrative Tribunal. He submits that the order obtained by the petitioner was, in reality, for stealing the march over the respondent and therefore, it was rightly stayed by the learned Administrative Tribunal. 19. Upon perusal of the paper book of this petition, what strikes ones mind is that the learned Deputy Collector has shown a good deal of expedition on his part in passing the order of confirmation of the partition and closing partition proceedings on 4.12.2013. This Court, in Writ petition No.718/2013, on 27.11.2013, had directed learned Additional President of Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the pending application for grant of stay bearing MCA No.226/2013 in LRA No.49/ 2013 expeditiously. Learned Deputy Collector was very well aware of the said order passed by the High Court. Learned Deputy Collector has, in the order passed on 4.12.2013, made a specific mention of the said order passed by the High Court. Learned Deputy Collector was very well aware of the said order passed by the High Court. Learned Deputy Collector has, in the order passed on 4.12.2013, made a specific mention of the said order passed by the High Court. It is difficult to understand as to why the learned Deputy Collector decided to proceed with the partition proceedings and confirm the plan area and adjustment statements submitted by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Quepem, when the High Court had directed Administrative Tribunal to decide the application seeking stay of the basic order of partition passed on 25.7.2013 within a fixed period of time, and the Administrative Tribunal was already seized of the matter. It was, therefore, expected of the learned Deputy Collector to have proceeded in the matter with care and caution and not to have closed the proceedings, as seen from Roznama (pages 211 to 213) by keeping the mater on only two dates i.e. 28.11.2013 and 4.12.2013. In such a background the learned Deputy Collector ought to have given a thought to the consequences of any final order that he would ultimately pass in the partition proceedings. Any final order of the partition passed by him would have had bearing upon the appeal preferred by the respondent against the partition order passed on 25.7.2013 which was pending before Administrative Tribunal, and that there was a possibility of the whole proceedings being rendered infructuous by virtue of the final order and, therefore, the propriety demanded that he had waited for sometime for the Administrative Tribunal to give its decision in the matter. After all, nothing adverse was going to happen from the view point of the petitioner, if the learned Deputy Collector had taken some more time in the matter. 20. After all, nothing adverse was going to happen from the view point of the petitioner, if the learned Deputy Collector had taken some more time in the matter. 20. No doubt this Court had quashed and set aside the stay order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in MCA No.226 of 2013 in LRA no.49 of 2013 and technically there was no restrain on the power of the Deputy Collector to proceed in the matter in accordance with law but, at the same time while doing so, at the cost of repetition, I must say, propriety demanded that learned Deputy Collector gave some time and some opportunity to the respondent to seek appropriate adjudication upon his stay application by the Administrative Tribunal especially when, there was also no question of any uncertainty in deciding the stay application. The Administrative Tribunal was already directed by the High Court to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 27.11.2013. Had there been no outer limit prescribed by this Court for deciding the stay application perhaps, some justification might have been there for the learned Deputy Collector to not keep the partition proceedings pending for a period of time which could have been indefinite in that case. But, that was not so in the instant case. Decision of the Administrative Tribunal was to come in any case within three months. Therefore, I am of the view that by granting ex-part ad-interim stay of said order dated 4.12.2013, the Administrative Tribunal cannot be said, at least at this stage, to have acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. 21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed on 13.1.2014 does not give any reasons and therefore, is perverse. I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that the Tribunal has considered the pleadings of the respondent in his application seeking stay of the impugned order. One of the reasons stated by the respondents is that based on the final partition order there is a possibility of the petitioner changing the nature of the property. 22. I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that the Tribunal has considered the pleadings of the respondent in his application seeking stay of the impugned order. One of the reasons stated by the respondents is that based on the final partition order there is a possibility of the petitioner changing the nature of the property. 22. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this reason is absolutely inadequate for no basis is spelt out to ascertain whether or not apprehension so expressed by the respondent is sound and founded upon some material. No doubt, respondent has not stated any specific act having been done by the petitioner so as to enable one to infer that the petitioner is likely to change the nature of the property. However, the circumstances in which the impugned order has been passed themselves gave rise to an apprehension, prima facie, that the petitioner is contemplating something about the property. Besides, the very nature of the order stayed by the order impugned herein is that it has the tendency to render the proceedings pending before the Administrative Tribunal in LRA No.49/2013 as infructuous. This order of 4.12.2013 is also not an order as can be said to be incapable of being stayed because it leaves correction of survey records to be done by the Mamlatdar, though it may have been passed by following the procedure prescribed under Rules 5 to 7 of the Partition Rules, 1969. Therefore, the order impugned herein cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. As regards the contention of the impugned order being contemptuous of order of this Court, with due respect, I must say that at a stage when the Administrative Tribunal has to take a decision as directed by this Court, it is better to not make any observation in this respect. Suffice it to say, the learned Deputy Collector should have been mindful of the directions given by this Court on 27.11.2013 in Writ petition No.718/2013 and should have waited for some time before closing the partition proceedings. This was the requirement of equity and propriety. 23. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.1.2014 cannot be found to be perverse or illegal or violative of any principle of law. The Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 24. Rule is discharged. Writ Petition dismissed.