AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 in both the petitions. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.
Both these petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since both these petitions are preferred against a common judgment dated 11/10/2010 passed by Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No. 14/1998 and Land Revenue Appeal No. 13/1998.
Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of the death certificate of respondent no. 2 which discloses that respondent no. 2 expired on 15/12/2001. The same is taken on record in both these petitions.
Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 does not dispute that respondent no. 2 had expired on 15/12/2001.
Indisputably, the appeals before the Administrative Tribunal were filed in the year 1998 and have been disposed of by the impugned common judgment and order dated 11/10/2010.
According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, respondent no. 2 was a necessary party before the Administrative Tribunal in both the appeals and respondent no. 2 having expired during the pendency of the appeals and his legal representatives having not been brought on record, the impugned common judgment and order passed in both the appeals is liable to be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that the legal representatives of respondent no. 2 were not brought on record.
Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that respondent no. 2 was not a necessary party before the Administrative Tribunal and in the event this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and order and remand the matter to the Administrative Tribunal, direction be given to the Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously inasmuch as respondent no. 1 is aged about 75 years.
The death certificate produced by learned Counsel for the petitioners discloses that respondent no. 2 has expired on 15/12/2001 and the appeals were disposed of without bringing his legal representatives on record. According to the petitioners, they had sought relief against respondent no. 2 and as such, in the absence of his legal representatives, the appeals could not have been proceeded with. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Shirodkar.
The necessary sequitur is that the impugned common judgment and order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that both the appeals were disposed of without bringing the legal representatives of respondent no. 2 on record. Accordingly, the common judgment and order dated 11/10/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Land Revenue Appeal No. 14/1998 and Land Revenue Appeal No. 13/1998 is quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to Administrative Tribunal.
Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file appropriate applications to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent no. 2. Mr. Shirodkar states that he will file appropriate applications within a period of four weeks. If such applications are filed, learned Administrative Tribunal shall dispose of the applications in accordance with law and proceed to dispose of both the appeals, in accordance with law.
The petitioner and respondent no. 1 shall appear before the Administrative Tribunal on 30/11/2012 at 10.30 a.m. Considering that respondent no. 1 is aged about 75 years, the Administrative Tribunal shall dispose of both the appeals expeditiously.
Mr. Shirodkar seeks leave to file applications before the Administrative Tribunal seeking leave to appeal in both the appeals. Liberty to the petitioners to file applications for leave to appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. Needless to mention that all the contentions of respondent no. 1 in relation thereto are kept open.
It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and all the contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms in both the petitions.