08 August 2024 Land Acquistion >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent legal ruling in Agnelo H.A. Andrade v/s The Additional Collector, Goa & Others, the court addressed a critical issue concerning the principles of natural justice and the procedural handling of appeals. The case at hand involved a challenge to an order issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as not maintainable due to a delay beyond the stipulated period.

Background and Proceedings:

The case originated from an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging a decision made by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the Deputy Collector’s order dated June 30, 2022, approached the Collector by filing a second appeal. However, this second appeal was submitted beyond the prescribed 60-day period as outlined in Section 189 of the Land Revenue Code. Alongside the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay, seeking to justify the late submission.

Issue of Natural Justice:

The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to present their case regarding the delay. Mr. Pereira, representing the petitioner, argued that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed without any hearing, which contravenes the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, dated November 22, 2022, rejected the delay application solely on the grounds that the appeal was filed beyond the 60-day limit and did not justify the delay sufficiently. The order did not indicate that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to argue their case or submit additional written explanations.

Legal Framework and Analysis:

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 188(2) of the Code permits a second appeal before the Collector, with Section 189 setting the 60-day filing period. Importantly, Section 195 of the Code incorporates sections of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, which allows for the condonation of delay if justified. The court emphasized that when an application for condonation of delay is filed, natural justice demands that the petitioner be given an opportunity to explain the delay. The failure to provide such an opportunity, the court ruled, constituted a denial of fair play and due process.

Court’s Decision:

In light of these considerations, the court ruled that the rejection of the delay application without a hearing was unjust. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Collector with instructions to restore the delay application and the second appeal, and to provide the petitioner with a proper hearing before deciding on the delay application. The court directed the parties to appear before the Collector on August 22, 2024, at 3:00 PM. The Collector was instructed to ensure that the petitioner was given a fair hearing and that the delay application was adjudicated in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in the judicial process. It reaffirms that parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, especially when challenging procedural issues like delay in appeals. The decision serves as a reminder of the courts' commitment to ensuring that administrative decisions are made transparently and fairly.

  Limitation Act, 1963