9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is about illegally blocking the suit road providing access to the suit property. Respondent No. 1 is claiming easement of necessity and easement by grant in respect of suit road and it is it's case that same is being denied to it - merely on the basis of statements made in the plaint, it cannot be said that section 52-A GID Act was applicable and its requirements ought to have been fulfilled before filing of the suit. The plaint, therefore, could not have been rejected under Rule 11(d), Order 7 of the CPC. There are no illegality nor any perversity in the impugned order. It does not call for any interference. Point is answered accordingly. CRA, therefore, stands dismissed. - S.B. Shukre, J. For the Appellant : Ashwin D. Bhobe For Respondents : Nitin Sardessai, Deep Shirodkar and Purna Bhandari, A.G. JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference? 3. This revision application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the suit road before acquisition of the property for the petitioner by the State Government and also easement of necessity and easement by grant were denied. It was submitted that the wall that was being constructed along the boundary towards western side of the suit property was on the property of the petitioner and was well within powers of the petitioner Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the GID Act ). 7. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC which was later on prosecuted as an application under Rule 11(d) of the CPC only. It was submitted that section 52-A of the GID Act required giving of two months prior notice before institution of the suit and since the suit challenged the acts done by the petitioner in pursuance or in execution of the GID Act, compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 52-A was a necessity and as it was not done, the suit was barred by the law. 8. The application was resisted by respondent No. 1 contending that when the Court dispensed with the notice under section 80 of CPC, notice as contemplated under section 52-A was also implied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e neither comparable nor analogous to each other. The notice under section 80 is required when the suit is filed in respect of any act purporting to be done by the public officer in his official capacity. The expression act purporting to be done is important and it would take within its fold even those acts which may not be actually part of the powers or duties of the public Officer, but are so intimately connected with the duties of the public officer as cannot be separated from them. This is not so, in case of section 52-A of the GID Act. There is no use of the expression purporting to be done therein and what is used is expression in pursuance or execution or intending execution of this Act , which expression appears to be narrower in connotation from the former expression used in section 80. In the latter expression, the act complained of must be such as is performed in execution of the powers, functions and duties under the GID Act or in accordance with the provisions of the GID Act or should be in respect of alleged neglect or default in putting into effect the execution of the Act. Thus, the act complained of should have direct nexus with the powers, functions and dutie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 16. The moot question, however, remains to be answered. Inspite of having given wrong reasons, whether the impugned order can be faulted with. It is well settled law that a rightly concluded order based upon wrong reasons cannot be upset or reversed only because the reasons are incorrect. Therefore, it will have to be seen whether the statements made by the respondent No. 1 in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute, show that the suit is barred by any law in force. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon bare perusal of the complaint itself it would become clear that the act complained of in the suit is something which is being done by the petitioner in pursuance of it's power to develop its own property in view of powers under sections 30 to 34 of the GID Act and, therefore, from the statements made in the plaint itself, it would be clear that section 52-A notice is attracted and since it has not been given in this case, the suit is barred by law. 18. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, however, disagrees and submits that the averments in the plaint would show that the petitioner with mala fide intentions is obstructing the suit road providi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting with mala fide intention or acting obliquely or obstructing enjoyment of easementary right and so on, which create a doubt about the petitioner acting in pursuance of or in exercise of provisions of the GID Act. 21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that whether or not there is any specific averment as regards acting in violation of provisions of GID Act, section 52-A requirements being mandatory in nature, issuance of notice before institution of a suit is a condition precedent, and for this submission, he refers to me the case of Syed Abdul Razzak (supra) cited by him earlier. With due respect, I must say that I could not see any such proposition having been laid down in this case inasmuch as the language of section 52-A being clear, compliance with its requirements would be necessary only when the act in respect of which the suit is instituted, is an act done in pursuance of or in exercise of provisions of the GID Act. 22. In view of the above, I find neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned order. It does not call for any interference. Point is answered accordingly. CRA, therefore, stands dismissed. 23. Rule is discharged wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
