IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2007 DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. N.S. VERLEKAR AND ORS. ... Respondents Mr. Manish Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Mr.M.S.Usgaonkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. I. Agha for the Respondents no.1, 2(a) to 2 (c). Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 12th August, 2008 ORAL ORDER This petition by the Director of Settlement of Survey and Land Records takes exception to the Order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 5.12.2005 whereby the Tribunal set aside Order of the Revenue Authority dated 31.1.2002 which rejected application for the deletion of the name of the Government as occupant in respect of Survey no.55/1 and 55/2 of village Pilliem, Sanguem Taluka. 2. The respondents purchased the property in an auction held in execution proceedings by the Civil Court at Quepem. The respondents then applied for entering his name in the Revenue Records, deleting the name of the Government of Goa. This application was rejected by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records. Appeal by the respondents was also dismissed. The respondents preferred second appeal before the Administrative Tribunal which too dismissed the same by Judgment dated 23.8.1991. However upon a review, on 2.12.1993 the Adminstrative Tribunal set aside the orders of authorities below and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. 2. Upon remand, the Dy.Collector by his Judgment dated 31.1.2002 rejected the respondents'claim. The matter was again taken up before the Administrative Tribunal, which its impugned judgment, set aside the Order of the Dy. Collector and directed deletion of the name of the Government as occupant in the Revenue Records of Survey no.55/1 and 55/2 of Village Pilliem. Aggrieved thereby the Director of Settlement is before this Court. 3. I have heard Advocate Salkar, Addl.Government Advocate for the petitioner and Advocate Usgaonkar, Sr. Counsel for the respondents. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objections has been raised to the tenability of the petition. The respondent contend that a person aggrieved by an Order passed under Section 14(3) of the Goa Land Revenue Code could institute a Civil Suit within a period of one year from the date of the said order, and the decision of the Civil Court would be binding on the parties. In view of availability of alternate remedy, according to the respondents, the petition is not tenable. Further the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the case raises the disputed questions of fact and it may not be permissible for this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to go into those questions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in Kishor W. Darne V/s Tarabai W. Gharat reported in (2002(6) Bom. C.R. 342 submitted that it was permissible for this Court to go into the question of facts as well, when there has been a defecting procedure. The observations of the Court in para 11 of the judgment may be usefully re-produced as under: "The approach which has been adopted by the two Courts below and the learned member in accepting the evidence of the respondents is also erroneous. When a Court is accepting the evidence of a particular party, it is bound to discuss the evidence of both the parties and to find out the merit or demerit of the evidence adduced by both the parties and it is obliged to adopt the process of scanning and weighing the evidence. Unfortunately in this case the evidence which has been adduced by the petitioners has not been considered, leave aside discussed. Without discussing the evidence of both the parties in relation to each other and adopting a process of reasonable appreciation of evidence, the two courts below jumped to the conclusion that, the respondents had proved that they were tenants of the suit land and that has been adopted in the same style by the learned Member of M.R.T. Here comes the criteria for interference by the High Court. When this Court is exercising jurisdiction and powers in view of Article 227 of Constitution of India the approach would be stricter and wider also. When this Court finds that there has been a defect in procedure and the judgment and Awards the defective, illegal, this Court is bound to interfere in it." 4. In Shankar B. Vadangekar V/s Ganpati A. Gatare reported in 2001(4) Bom. C.R. 806 as which the learned Addl. Government Advocate placed reliance, this Court had held that it would be wholly inappropriate to dismiss a writ petition simply holding that it could not interfere with finding of facts. 5. The petitioner cannot also rely on the Land Revenue Code for claiming that the land in dispute is its property merely because all lands vest in the State. The position in respect of this particular land would have to be ascertained by tracing out title. 6. As rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this is not a question of interfering with the findings of the facts by the Courts below. The question is of availability of an alternate remedy which the legislature specifically provided because of the peculiar nature of question which warrants a decision upon contest by a Civil Court. It is not a question of merely correcting the revenue records or correcting records in respect of occupation of a land. Such entries would have to be taken on the basis of adjudication, where the question of right of parties to have their name entered in the occupants column would be duly considered by the Civil Court, which alone has the power to decide issues pertaining to title. Legislature having provided such a remedy, it was not proper for the petitioner to rush to this Court to invoke jurisdiction under Articel 227 of Constitution. 7. As already stated, in this case, the respondent claimed to have purchased a property at a Court auction. It would be difficult to hold that the respondents were wholly unjustified in approaching the Revenue Authorities for inserting their names in the Revenue Records in respect of the suit property. There can be no doubt that the respondents would get only rights which the persons whose property was put to auction held. If the person was an encroacher in settled possession the auction purchaser would step into his shoes. This question would have to be decided only by the Civil Court. 8. In view of this, the petition is dismised. The petitioner is at liberty to appraoch the Civil Court which without doubt would consider time spent by the petitioner in litigation in this Court, while considering whether the suit would be entertained or not. No order as to costs. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg