Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 197 (BOM)

Antonio Vithal Luis v. Zeferino F. Vaz

2021-01-29

M.S.SONAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : M.S. SONAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. Valmiki Menzes for the petitioner. 2. The records indicate that the service is complete upon all the respondents. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14th June, 2011, by which the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has refused to condone the delay in institution of an appeal under the Land Revenue Code. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay was dismissed even before the respondents could file any response to the said application and contest the factual averments made by the petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay. The application seeking condonation of delay was backed by an affidavit, sworn by the petitioner-Antonio Vithal Luis. Therefore, at least, ordinarily unless the factual averments were disputed by the opposite party, the Tribunal may not have been justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 5. Besides, it was pointed out in both, the application for condonation of delay, as well as in the application seeking leave to prefer an appeal that the petitioner was never served in the proceedings which culminated in the Deputy Collector’s order dated 19-8-2005 now that the Tribunal has granted the petitioner leave to appeal based on this very averments. There is also record that the father of the petitioner late Joao Minguel Luis had expired some time in the year 1998 and there was no application for bringing on record the LRs. which included the petitioner herein. This aspect does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal before making the impugned order. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 14th June, 2011, made by the Tribunal is, hereby, set aside and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay filed on 27-1-2010. This time, the Tribunal will issue notice to the respondents and decide the application for condonation of delay only after the response is filed, or indicate that they do not wish to file any response to it, or the respondents do not file any response despite grant of opportunity to them. 7. The observations in this order are only prima facie and the same need not influence the Tribunal while disposing of the application for condonation of delay, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8. 7. The observations in this order are only prima facie and the same need not influence the Tribunal while disposing of the application for condonation of delay, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 1st March, 2021 at 10.30 a.m. However, if the respondents or some of the respondents fail to appear by themselves, or through their Advocate on the said date, the Tribunal to issue notices to them and upon service of such notices, endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 10. In this matter, the petitioner took a considerable time to serve the respondents. However, before the Tribunal it is expected that the petitioner takes expeditious steps to effect service upon the respondents or the un-served respondents, so that the proceedings before the Tribunal can be disposed of expeditiously. Mr. Menezes assures this Court that expeditious steps will be taken to effect service upon the respondents. 11. Misc. Civil Applications, if any, are also disposed of. Rule made absolute.