ANTONETTO JOHN D' SOUZA @ JOHNNY D' SOUZA versus MRS. ALDILA BRAGANZA

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 88 
A 
ANTONETTO JOHN D' SOUZA @ JOHNNY D' SOUZA 
B 
v. 
MRS. ALDILA BRAGANZA 
(Civil Appeal No.4995 of 2014) 
JULY 02, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
High Court - Writ jurisdiction - Dispute regarding 
C · easementary rights - In view of grant of alternate access, High 
Court by order dated 4.5.2009 allowed the claimant to withdraw 
her case - Application of the claimant seeking withdrawal of 
order 
dated 
4.5.2009 
alleging 
that 
there 
was 
misrepresentation as regards grant of alternate access -
D 
Since there was disputed questions of fact, the High Court 
disposed of the application, giving liberty to claimant to 
approach the court of Mamlatdar - Application before 
Mamlatdar was dismissed and revision against the order of 
Mamlatdar a/so dismissed - Writ petition - High Court directed 
E 
the Mamlatdar to re-open the case, if he had jurisdiction to 
do so - On appeal, held: High Court, in exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction was not right in remitting the matter to Mamlatdar 
directing him to re-open the proceedings - Easementary 
Rights. 
F 
The respondent filed an application u/s. 4 of the 
Mamlatdar's Court Act, before the Mamlatdar, alleging 
blocking of her traditional. easementary access, 
obstructed by the appellant. The application was 
dismissed in default. When the matter was taken in 
G 
Revision, the Court directed the Mamlatdar to remove the 
obstacles. Thereagainst, the appellant filed writ petition. 
The respondent had also filed a suit against the 
H 
88 
ANTONETIO JOHN D' SOUZA@ JOHNNY D' SOUZA v. 
89 
ALDILA BRAGANZA 
appellant for mandatory injunction, the same having been 
A 
dismissed, was taken in appeal to High Court. High Court 
by order dated 4.5.2009 observed that the Panchayat had 
granted a satisfactory alternate access to the 
respondent, and in view thereof, disposed of the writ 
petition and allowed withdrawal of the appeal. 
8 
The respondent filed an application before High 
Court seeking withdrawal of its order dated 4.5.2009 as 
there was misrepresentation as regards grant of suitable 
alternate access. On the direction .of the High Court site 
C 
inspection was conducted and the inspection report 
revealed that the alternate access did not have a 
minimum uniform width of 1.5 meters. The High Court by 
order dated 10.5.2012, disposed of the application 
without going into the disputed facts regarding the 
alternate access and gave liberty to the respondent to 
approach the Mamlatdar. Pursuant thereto, the 
respondent filed application before Mamlatdar and the 
same was dismissed. Revision petition against the same 
was also dismissed. Therefore, the respondent filed writ 
petition, wherein High Court passed the impugned order 
remanding the matter to Mamlatdar to decide whether he 
had jurisdiction/powers to re-open the proceedings in 
question and to pass appropriate orders. Hence the 
present appeal. 
D 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court considering the fact that 
disputed question of fact is involved in the case by order 
dated 10th May, 2012 observed that it was not for the High 
Court to re-consider the matter in the writ petition which 
has already been disposed of. Without going into the 
correctness of the contentions of the parties in respect 
of the alternative access, the respondent was given 
liberty to approach the Mamlatdar, with regard to her 
claim of access to her property, who was asked to decide 
F 
G 
H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[4014J_ 8 S.C.R. 
A 
the same after hearing the concerned parties in 
accordance with law. No direction was issued by the 
High Court to reopen the matter. The High Court has also 
not directed the Mamlatdar, to consider the question as 
to whether he has jurisdiction/powers to reopen the 
B 
proceedings. Such being the position, it was not open 
for the High Court in a subsequent writ petition to pass 
any order enlarging the order and direction issued by the 
High Court in the earlier Writ Petition. At best, the High 
Court could have asked the Village Panchayat, to issue 
C 
completion certificate, if the same had not been issued 
pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 4th May, 
2009. It is only after issuance of the completion 
certificate, the respondent could have decided whether 
she is satisfied with such completion_ certificate or not. 
The respondent having accepted and given undertaking 
D to withdraw the application before the Mamlatdar Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.