This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Eldorado at Santa Fe, Inc. applied to the state engineer for a permit to drill a replacement water well after the casing of its original well failed. Due to a word processing error, the published notice of the application contained incorrect land grant and section descriptions. No objections were raised, and the permit was granted. Petitioners later challenged the permit, alleging that the defective notice violated their due process rights and potentially impaired their water rights (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- State Engineer, July 21, 1983: Granted Eldorado's application for a replacement well permit.
- District Court, Date Unspecified: Dismissed a related mandamus petition and granted the petitioners' writ of certiorari, remanding the matter to the state engineer for reprocessing (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Intervenor-Appellant (Eldorado at Santa Fe, Inc.): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to remand the case, that the petitioners lacked standing, and that the defective notice was not a jurisdictional defect. Eldorado also contended that the district court erred in considering a new defect in the notice raised during trial (paras 2, 14, 16, 20-22).
- Petitioners-Appellees: Claimed that the defective notice violated their due process rights, causing substantial injury by impairing their water rights. They argued that the writ of certiorari was appropriate as they had no adequate remedy at law due to the lack of proper notice (paras 10-13).
- Respondent-Appellee (State Engineer): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was the issuance of a writ of certiorari proper given the alleged lack of notice and due process?
- Did the petitioners have standing to seek a writ of certiorari?
- Did the district court have jurisdiction to remand the matter to the state engineer?
- Did the defective publication of notice constitute a jurisdictional defect?
- Was the district court's order a final judgment?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the writ of certiorari and remand the matter to the state engineer for reprocessing (para 25).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Alarid C.J. and Chavez J. concurring):
The court held that the district court's order was a final judgment, as no further judicial action was contemplated or authorized after the remand (paras 7-9). The petitioners established a prima facie case for the writ of certiorari by demonstrating a lack of adequate remedy at law and substantial injury due to the defective notice, which violated their due process rights (paras 10-13). The court rejected Eldorado's argument that the petitioners needed to adjudicate their water rights to have standing, as such a requirement would impose an undue burden (para 14).
The remand to the state engineer was deemed proper, as it allowed for new proceedings to correct the jurisdictional defect caused by the defective notice (paras 16-17). The court found that the incorrect land grant description in the notice was a substantive error sufficient to void the state engineer's decision, regardless of any additional errors raised during trial (paras 18-21). Finally, the court concluded that the defective notice deprived the state engineer of jurisdiction to grant the permit, rendering all subsequent actions void (paras 22-23).