Baptist Mascarenhas vs Noel F C Pinto on 1 July, 2008

(By Sri ; K’$§A£,3:-;’1%r§{}m :«c}§;1:2A:s.”r1~1 FOR R3
sri.R.s.HARATHc;:AN»a’RaG? ma R34. )

imxs wié’1*r~APpEAL IS FILED U18 4 0:? THE

‘N:f;§ .’s :13):1 :s§5 DATED “2 1/ 09/ 2004.

….5…..

This Writ Appeal coming on for _

SAB!-IAHIT J., delivered the following: ~ _ .

JUDGMENT);

This appeal by the respondents 1:_”(a).g ‘{:).: .«

petition is mad being aggrievedV’f§y’«–..§he mgr ¢1au:d”g1′;9’.2<§94'

wherein the learned qudge' 'gnawed
the writ petition and by the Land
Tribunal. Manga;§m_ dagjtiéiii' m .1§s__1 remitted the
matter to mg IQ: in acooldancc

with concerned.

2.v ‘I’1:1’e~ writ filed by the first respondent

hereig passad by the Land Tribunal.

., rit. Pet’1£iE)n’—-No;5113/ 95 had been filed challenging

L_’thrV:A the Tribunal, after the establishment of

Appellate Authority the matter was

Land Reforms Appellate Authority on 17.8.99

‘~…;h{ficaftcr, after the abolition: of the Land Reforms

— Authoxity, CP was filed before this court which

T ” to be numbemd as CP.No.7764/91 which was disposed

\;~’>.

..5..

of along with ooxmectw CPS by order dated 9. 10.91′.

was allowed and an order was passed in

proceedings before the Land Reforms .e

and the same came to be

learned Single Judge ce’~t,1;is the learned
counsel apyearing for contention of
the appeflnnte before the
Land and wherefore, C? filed
under “Ref:.>iin1s Amendment Act was
not the writ petitioner was to file

a Imus” Single Judge further held

_ that peeefoa x§rne&.maintainablc and having found that

by the Tribunal is not a speaking order as

by the parties has not been considered by

quashed the order passed by the Land

.4 end remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for

disposal, in accordance with law by oxder dated

Being aggieved by the said order, respondents

1(3) to (e) have prefened this appeal.
\}~% ,

was pending before the appellate authority .¢

the order passed in CF

W.P.No.5I13/95 was not

in support of his contention V’

Bench decision of §.\f.h..rqo.34430;e§2 dated
4.3.94 and decision of ‘@9863/91 dated
3.2.94 in suppo:i*i«;of_ the appeal was
not biI1din§g”VaL}:f:i:VtV<)1"ity, C? was not
of the Land Reforms
Amencimeni '-eefisequenfly, Writ petition was

not Wiicfefom, the order passed by the

_ Sing1eV'J'a1e1:ge of this court ncgativing the contczution

regarding maintainability of CP and writ

is be set as1sd' e.

other hand, kaamed counsel appearing for

‘A u ” thee respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the writ

.’ which was transferred to appellate authority was

before the appellate authority and abatement is not

\§–J> .

“$0..

6. We have given anxb us eonsiaderafibnv ‘

contcnfion of the learned counsel ” K x

scrutinized the avermcnts made

contents of the documents tdthc = L’

order passed in C.P.No.'(704/ onicr

passed by the learned .Ju_dg§,e; ‘4 V

7. Them of the learned
counsel that if the appeal before
the i’;0t’* gacnding on the date of
abolit:i<$i1_ question of transferring

a by filing a CP does not arise.

V. w.éS”‘fi1cd_bcfom this court and this court having

for not issuing notice to the

“m§pon”ae;its has allowed the (:9 and directed that the

transferred to this court and numbered as

V 1=>§tition.51:3/95. The said onier passed by this court

kw: 9.10.97 has become final, The contention of the

counsel appearing for the appellants that the order

W

-1,!”

passed in C? dated 9.10.97 has ~..

passed. in the Writ petition does X

application to tzransfizr the thefoxré: *’

appcliate authority to the file been
allowed by a separate ostésgr :40#£I’€_1″ has final.

3. In any v::3fV–t..7:1§> ‘vficlcar that the
pmceeding had not been
dismissed. “me had died and
applicafiiéiiv he in filing to set aside
zyxbatexzzt’;-#133: legal Ieprcsentatives of the

deccas_ed~af)p¢I}antVwéi1t»’p<£i1ding consideration. The kaarncd

A_ of after considezing the contention
Which' before him has rightly held that

means Be-sscning or shortening and when

V _ a he to proceed with thdcasc pcmding bcfom it

.4 . t_:,I':1e n that proper part.w' s are not before it,

can be abated. when an application is made to

brifig necessary parties before the court and brings proper

\§i,\/§~,

party before it and proceeds with the hearing

abatement would not amount to :vii_ccv§isi£:n3:1V§

mixed' upon by the 1camedV

appellants is not hcipful to mm the fixeseat the " V

said cases, the appeal a;'3fzei§atc.Vv.%;1uthority
had been ozder as in
w.P.xo.19363(<3i '-5:" upon by the
Eeamed th¥::_ appeal had been
Quad in the other
'béfom the appeflate authority
had bccfi the said decision is also

not }§c1pf11I to in the present case to contend

was not pending before the appeilate

..g'§n:ii'Vv'-firhczefoxe, we do not find any reason ta

ia:gte~.srer;=;' w£ti{the finding of the learned Single Judge that

3 before the appellate authority was pending and

.'.Fn;icen duly transferred to this court, in View of the order

in C.P.No.7764/91 dated 9.10.97'. When once it is

held. that the proceeding was pending before the appellate

2%

kw »

-13″.

authority and the same has been transfcrre§1_ _

and LRS of the ‘ al first mspogidcfit’

on record by filing necessary “set ..

abatement by condoning the delfif til: to ‘V

set: aside abatemcnt am!’ to ‘i*heA”V:i.Rs, the
learned Single Judge ssrder passed by
the Tfibunal ._ is not passw
on consiécaafiicn by the parties
before the order passed by
the the matter to the Land

Tzibunal accordance with law.

On. the order passed by the Land

10.91, it is clear that apart from stating the

Tribunal has not at all considered the

materdaiadduced by the parties to find out as to whether the

A {f of the applicant has been substantiated and Wherefore,

{£31-2: order passed by the Land Tribunal has been tightly

Xjuashed by the learned Single Judge of this court: and

\_°r«-99,