Bombay High Court
Cummunidade Of Tivim Thr. Its Attorney ... vs State Of Goa Thr Its Chief Secretary And ... on 6 August, 2024
2024:BHC-GOA:1264
2024:BHC-GOA:1264
WP194-2024.DOC
Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2024
Cummunidade of Tivim, Tivim,
Bardez-Goa. Through its Attorney, Mr.
James D'Souza, Son of Shri. Joseph
D'Souza, Aged about 44 years,
Indian National and R/at H. No. 520,
Compremwado, Tivim, Bardez, Goa-
403502. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1 State of Goa,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Having office at Secretariat,
Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
2 Administrator of Communidades
North Zone, Having office at
Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.
3 Mr. Bicu Narayan Vaigankar,
Aged 68 years, bachelor,
agriculturist,
4 Mr. Vithal Narayan Vaigankar,
Aged 56 years, married,
agriculturist,
5 Mrs. Anita Vithal Vaigankar,
Aged 53 years, married,
housewife, All r/o H. No. 4,
Galvan, Damedem, Tivim,
Bardez, Goa.
6 Mrs. Laxmi Narayan Malji, Aged
59 years, married, housewife.
7 Mr. Narayan Rajaram Malji,
Aged 67 years, married,
Page 1 of 23
6th August, 2024.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 15:11:50 :::
WP194-2024.DOC
businessman, Both resident of H.
No. 6/2, Galvan, Damedem,
Tivim, Bardez, Goa.
8 Mrs. Manisha Manohar Surlekar,
Aged 61 years, married,
housewife,
9 Mr. Manohar Vithal Surlekar,
Aged 61 years, married, Both
resident of H. No. 190/S-4,
Central Horta, Talaulim,
Navelim, Salcete, Goa.
10 Mrs. Pramila Satish Kauthankar,
Aged 45 years, married,
housewife,
11 Mr. Satish Digambar
Kauthankar, Aged 48 years,
married, Both resident of H. No.
1176, Volconem, Tivim, Bardez,
Goa.
All represented by their Power of
Attorney Holder
Mr. Bicu Narayan Vaigankar, the
Respondent No. (3) hereinabove,
Major, bachelor, Resident of
Galwan, Thivim, Bardez, Goa. ...Respondents.
Mr. S. S.Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr D. Gaonkar, Ms S.
Dessai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr S. P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for respondent
nos.1 and 2.
Mr A. R. Kantak, Advocate for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
Mr A. D. Bhobe and Ms S. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent nos.
6, 8, 10 and 11.
_______________________
CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
Reserved on : 11th July 2024
Pronounced on: 6th August, 2024
Page 2 of 23
6th August, 2024.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 15:11:50 :::
WP194-2024.DOC
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr
D. Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr A. R. Kantak,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, Mr A. D. Bhobe,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 8, 10 and 11 and Mr S. P.
Munj, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage with consent.
3. Petitioner/Comunidade of Tivim being aggrieved by order
passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 13.4.2023, preferred the
present petition.
4. By the impugned order, learned Administrative Tribunal
refused to grant permission to Comunidade and private respondents
to compromise proceedings filed under Goa Agricultural Tenancy
Act 1964.
5. Mr Kantak would submit that resolution was passed by the
petitioner's General Body meeting that matter pending between
Comunidade and the respondents need to be disposed of by filing
consent terms. However, since Code of Comunidades and more
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
particularly Article 154(3) requires permission of the Administrative
Tribunal, an application was filed for grant of permission to
compromise proceedings. Respondents also agreed to decide the said
proceedings by filing consent terms. However, learned
Administrative Tribunal rejected such prayer by misdirecting itself
and failing to consider the best interest of the Comunidade.
6. Mr Kantak disclosed that terms of compromise clearly goes to
show that it will be benefiting the Comunidade as it will retain 40%
of the land for its own use whereas the remaining 60% will be
considered as the land belonging to the respondents.
7. Mr Kantak would further submit that even the Administrator of
Comunidade agreed for such compromise terms and recommended
that the matter could be compromised.
8. Mr Kantak would further submit that respondents filed
proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Agricultural
Tenancy Act wherein exparte order was passed thereby declaring the
respondents as tenants of the property mentioned therein.
Comunidade then decided to challenge such order and accordingly,
an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court. However, General Body
of the Comunidade discussed the issue and opined that for the best
interest of the Comunidade to file consent terms thereby agreeing to
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
give up to 60% land and to retain 40% with it. Such a proposal of the
Comunidade was then put before the respondents who immediately
agreed and accordingly the matter was referred to the Administrator.
The Administrator of Comunidade by giving his consent, referred the
matter to the Administrative Tribunal for grant of permission under
Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades.
9. Mr Kantak would submit that terms discussed and agreed
between the parties would clearly suggest that Comunidade will be
benefited if such consent terms are agreed and permitted or
otherwise entire land will be considered as tenanted land and will
have to be allotted to the respondents.
10. Mr Kantak while arguing the matter, would submit that
decision of the Administrative Tribunal ought to have been exercised
looking to the best interest of the Comunidade as agreed terms would
clearly go to show that Comunidade is going to retain 40% of the land
in question. He submits that the learned Administrative Tribunal
failed to consider this aspect only on the ground that terms disclose
exclusive free right from any tenancy claim, being against the
provisions of the tenancy Act. He submits that unless rights are given
to the parties, the question of making it as a free hold land would be
difficult.
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
11. Mr A. R. Kantak and Mr A. D. Bhobe appearing for the private
respondents supported the contentions of Mr Kantak, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner.
12. Mr Munj, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State while opposing such prayer and supporting the contentions
and observations in the impugned order would submit that procedure
which has been adopted by Comunidade along with private
respondents would be clearly against the provisions of Agricultural
Tenancy Act. He would submit that the claim of tenancy of private
respondents was already decided by Court of law and therefore, such
private respondents are now the tenants/deemed owner of the said
property. He further submits that by filing consent terms, parties are
trying to quash and set aside the order of tenancy Court and instead
of it are trying to give free hold right to the private respondents to be
used for any purpose. He submits that when a tenanted land is
considered for the purpose of deciding whether a party is a tenant, it
cannot be used for any other purpose. He would further submit that
Comunidade by retraining 40% of the land is trying to use it for other
purposes than the agricultural purpose, which cannot be permitted by
filing such compromise.
13. Mr. Munj, while relying upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Raghupati R. Bhandari Vs
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
Comunidade of Bandora,1 and in the case of Pilerne Citizens
Forum Vs State of Goa through its Chief Secretary and
ors,2 would submit that the order passed by the Administrative
Tribunal is perfectly justified and needs no interference.
14. Rival contentions fall for consideration.
15. Private respondents filed Tenancy Application no. 71/2016/B
on 8.12.2016. Tenancy Court declared private respondents as tenants
of survey nos. 448/0 and 440/0. Area of both these survey holdings is
2,98,170 sq. mts. Judgment passed by the tenancy Court is dated
1.9.2017. It shows that petitioner/Comunidade was duly served in the
said Tenancy Application No. 71/2016/B, however, no one appeared
for and on behalf of the petitioner and thus matter proceeded
exparte.
16. Tenancy Court allowed private respondents to lead evidence
and thereafter decided the matter on merits by examining the
documents placed on record which has been clear from paragraph no.
20 and by assessing/evaluating oral evidence led by the tenants and
their witnesses. Finally, the Tenancy Court observed that private
respondents proved their case and accordingly, they are declared as
1 MANU/MH/0354/2021
2 (2010) 6 Bom Cr 594
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
tenants of the suit properties bearing survey no.440 and 448 of
village Tivim, Bardez Goa.
17. The petitioner then filed an appeal i.e Tenancy Appeal no
5/2018 before the First Appellate Court which is still pending
adjudication. In the meantime, Extraordinary meeting of the
petitioner was called somewhere in the year 2021 wherein some
resolution was passed vide Agenda no.6 wherein it is discussed that
private respondents have been declared as tenants and an appeal is
pending before the First Appellate Court. After deliberation whether
to continue with litigation, it was decided to amicably settle the
dispute by considering a proposal for compromise. It was opined that
advantage to the Comunidade would be to get back possession of
some portion of the said land then facing the risk of losing the entire
land to the tenants. Discussion further shows that the private
respondents would be consented and thereafter the matter could be
discussed further. Two proposals were suggested and discussed
including one to settle the matter in the ratio of 60:40 i.e 60% of the
land to the tenant and 40% of the land to the Comunidade and it was
agreed by members of Gaonkars that such proposal would be in the
best interest of the Comunidade as they will be able to retain 40% of
the land instead of conceding entire land. It was also decided to file
compromise terms by following all the procedures.
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
18. Proposal was accepted by private respondents and accordingly,
in the next Extraordinary General Body meeting held in October 2021
it was decided to file consent terms before the Appellate Court by
obtaining permission from the consent authority. Terms were drawn
and the same were placed before the Administrator who forwarded it
with approval to the Administrative Tribunal for grant of consent.
19. Chapter V of the Code of Comunidades deals with the
Administrative Tribunal. Article 154 states about the powers of the
Administrative Tribunal which includes sub clause 3 which reads
thus:-
"Article 154(3) "Grant permission to the
Comunidades to file suits in accordance with Article
9, save in what is provided in the Article 353,
paragraph 3 of Article 380 and Article 388 and
Article 305 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code to
withdraw, admit and compromise, as well as
authorise the respective expenditure"
20. It is thus clear that permission of the Administrative Tribunal
is required for the purpose of filing compromise terms in a suit
wherein Comunidade is a party.
21. The above provisions will have to be read along with Article 9
which provides that the Comunidade are not entitled to file any civil
suits without permission of the Administrative Tribunal, save in cases
where civil suit is merely of preventive relief or of executive nature
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
or the delay in its filing may result extinction of the right or any
guarantee, in which case the sanction of the administrator be
enough.
22. Article 30 deals with powers of the Comunidade wherein clause
(g) provides regarding institution, admissions, withdrawal and
compromise of any civil suit or legal proceedings. However, such
Article though deals with powers of Comunidade, it provides that
Comunidade shall elect every three years itself ordinary attorneys and
its substitute, Appoint a special attorneys, when necessary, opine on
the statement of income and expenditure,to deliberate on:(g)
Institution, admissions, withdrawal and compromise of any civil suit
or legal proceedings.
23. Thus, Article 30(4) empowers Comunidade to deliberate on
aspects of admission, withdrawal or compromise of any civil suit or
other legal proceedings.
24. Article 125 of the Code of Comunidades deals with powers of
the Administrator and includes in it to grant permission or to
authorise Comunidade to file suit under the terms of Article 9 as well
as authorise necessary expenses.
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
25. Article 349 appearing in chapter VIII deals with permission for
filing of suit and provides that when the Comunidade decides to file a
suit in terms of Article 9, the attorney shall explain, with indication of
the probable expenditure with the suit, with para wise pleadings in
fact and law supported by documents and addressed to the
Administrative Tribunal, through the respective administrator, who
shall put his remarks on it. The Administrative Tribunal shall decide,
independently of the approval without circulation to other members,
with exception that of the Ministerio Público, and if the permission is
granted to file the suit, it shall sanction the expenditure to be
incurred for the purpose.
26. Article 350 then provides that the procedure under Article 349
shall be adopted when the Comunidade requests permission to
withdraw, admit and compromise the suit. Thus it is clear that a
power of Comunidade is to deliberate upon the terms of compromise
as provided under Article 30(4)(g) and then forward it along with
necessary documents and proposal to the Administrative Tribunal
through respective Administrator along with his remark.
27. Present matter would go to show that Extra Ordinary meeting
conducted by the Comunidade/petitioner discussed in detail as to
why there is need to compromise the appeal filed by them challenging
declaration of tenancy in favour of the private respondents and to
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
save part of the land to be used for the Comunidade. Such proposal
was then put forth before the private respondents who agreed and
thereafter the entire proposal for compromise was forwarded to the
Administrative Tribunal through the respective Administrator with
his remark. It does show that petitioner has followed the entire
procedure as provided under the Code before filing an application for
permission to compromise the proceedings.
28. Though private respondents agree for such compromise terms,
power and duty of the Administrative Tribunal is clearly independent
and discretionary and thus only because both the parties are ready to
compromise, the matter would not in any manner compel the
Administrative Tribunal to pass the order of granting permission to
compromise.
29. In the present matter, the learned Administrative Tribunal
deliberated upon terms and conditions from paragraph no. 13
onwards and clearly observed that permission to file the consent
terms cannot be granted as it would be effectively negating the
tenancy in respect of both the survey numbers and more particularly
the balance land which Comunidade is now trying to retain.
30. Tribunal also observed that such compromise is clearly against
the provisions of Agricultural Tenancy Act and by signing such
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
compromise a tenant cannot give up his right of tenancy. Procedure
for giving up tenancy right is clearly separate and distinct and as
provided under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which cannot be
circumvent.
31. Such findings of the Tribunal are challenged in the present
petition on the premise that such a compromise is beneficial to the
Comunidade as it would be retaining 40% to the land for its own use
instead of allowing the entire land to be allotted to the private
respondents as tenants.
32. In Raghupati R Bhandhari (supra), decided by the
Division Bench of this Court on 8.12.2021 the dispute is similar.
Petition was filed by Comunidade challenging the order passed by the
Administrative Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 350
of the Code and refusing permission to compromise the dispute.
While considering this aspect, the learned Division Bench of this
Court observed in paragraph no. 59, 60 as under:-
"59 According to us, in terms of Article 350 of the
said Code, a Comunidade cannot, without
seeking prior approval of the Administrative
Tribunal, withdraw or compromise any suit
instituted by it or admit any claim or
compromise a suit in which it is impleaded as
the defendant. The Comunidade in such case
will have to follow the same procedure as is
prescribed in Article 349 of the said Code in the
matters of applying for and obtaining the
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
approval of the Administrative Tribunal.
However, it will not be correct to say that
obtaining such
approval from the Administrative Tribunal
before a Comunidade withdraws a suit
instituted by it or admits a claim or
compromises a suit instituted by or against it is
only some directory requirement. In this
regard, it must be remembered that the
Comunidade in terms of Article 5 of the said
Code is under the administrative tutelage of the
State, and in terms of the said Code, there are
statutory restrictions when it comes to disposal
of properties of Comunidades. One such
salutary restriction is to be found in Article 350
of the said Code. Neither usurpers of
Comunidade properties nor Comunidades can
bypass this provision with impunity by styling
the same as directory.
60 Ultimately, in such matters, we cannot forget
the origins of the institution of Comunidades
and the interests which the communities have
in the institution of Comunidades and its
properties.
Rui Gomes Pereira in the introduction to his
book "GOA - Gaunkari, the old village
associations, (1981)" has noted:-
"GAUM is village, GAUNKAR was its
freeholder and GAUNKARI his associations,
cooperatives, a small Republic. The Portuguese
called them COMUNIDADES, because the
gaunkars jointly held, administered and
enjoyed the village lands. This word got into
the vernacular language and it is by that name
that those associations are commonly known.
Hence they shall be referred to in this book as
COMMUNITIES.""
33. After considering the scheme of Code of Comunidades and the
purpose of it, it is further observed in paragraph 70 as under:-
"70 All this suggests that even though the
Comunidades may be the owners of their lands,
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
still the Comunidades hold such lands or
manage such lands in trust for the village
communities. Therefore, there is an obligation
upon the Managing Committees of such
Comunidades to ensure that the Comunidade
lands are not frittered away for some private
gains but that dealings with the Comunidade
lands are guided to achieve the best interests of
the Comunidades and its members. This is the
reason why certain fetters are imposed on
Comunidades when it comes to dealing with
their properties. The Government and the
Administrative Tribunal has to be alive to this
position even while considering the request
from the Comunidades for disposal of its
properties or for approval to admit any claims
or enter into any compromises which will affect
the land rights of the Comunidades."
34. The Division Bench further observed in paragraph 72 as
under :-
"72 For all these reasons, it is not possible to hold
that the provisions of Article 350 of the said
Code are only directory or that no approval
was necessary from the Administrative
Tribunal before the erstwhile president of the
Comunidade admitted the claim of the
Appellant herein when such admission resulted
in the Comunidade practically giving up its
established rights in respect of the suit
properties admeasuring 1,42,720 square
meters. Thus, apart from the elements of fraud
and collusion, we feel that the very filing of the
three-paragraph written statement dated 29th
October 1994 by the erstwhile president of the
Comunidade in the 1994 suit purporting to
admit the fraudulent claim of the Appellant was
an unauthorized act under the said Code since
the Comunidade or its Managing Committee
had not obtained any approval from the
Administrative Tribunal before admission of
such claim. Since, the decree dated 24th
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
November 1994 was based entirely on this
unauthorized act on the part of the president of
the Comunidade, the decree dated 24th
November 1994 was quite correctly declared as
null and void by the civil Court in the 1999 suit
instituted by the Comunidade."
35. In the case of Pilerne Citizens Forum (supra), the Division
Bench of this Court while considering the similar issue about the
approval of the Administrative Tribunal observed in paragraph 27,
28, 29 and 30 as under:-
"27 The earlier part of the said order notes that in
respect of tenancy of the said Hadfadkar,
Revision Application No. 24/2001 filed by the
said Communidade before the Administrative
Tribunal was pending. The compromise noted
by the Administrative Tribunal is that
Hadfadkar had agreed to give up his right or
claim of tenancy in respect of land surveyed
under Survey No. 211/1. The Tribunal was
made aware of the fact that there was already
a purchase certificate granted in favour of the
said Hadfadkar in respect of the said land. In
fact, the Administrative Tribunal permitted
compromise by which there was virtually a
surrender of tenancy by the said Hadfadkar in
respect of one of the two lands in respect of
which he was declared as a Purchaser. The
purported giving up of tenancy by the said
Hadfadkar was after purchase certificate was
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
granted in his favour. The Tenancy Act
prohibits surrender of Tenancy in this manner.
In fact there cannot be a surrender after the
vesting under section 18-A of the Tenancy Act.
The Tenancy Act prohibits a tenant purchaser
from transferring the land vested in him
without prior permission of the Mamlatdar,
Thus, on the face of it, the compromise was
illegal and even in exercise of administrative
powers of sanctioning compromise, the
Administrative Tribunal ought not to have
sanctioned such compromise which is
completely in breach of provisions of the
Tenancy Act. The Administrative Tribunal
cannot permit compromise which is per se
contrary to law. As stated earlier, the Tenancy
Act has been brought on the statute book as a
part of agrarian reforms. Therefore, under the
Tenancy Act, there is no provision permitting a
deemed purchaser to surrender his rights. The
tenancy of an ordinary tenant can be
determined only in accordance with the
provisions of the Tenancy Act. All these
protections are made a part of the Tenancy Act
with a view to ensure that tenants are not
either tempted or forced to give up their rights
under the Tenancy Act. Any compromise or
agreement recorded by any Court or Tribunal
by which a tenant or a tenant who is a deemed
purchaser surrenders or gives up his right, title
or interest is without jurisdiction. And non est
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
28 The matter does not rest here. In the consent
terms filed in the Civil Court, it is provided as
under:
"5. That the defendants shall
withdraw their claim of Tenancy
which are pending before the
Mamlatdar of Bardez at Mapusa
and accordingly shall withdraw
the Tenancy cases bearing
Nos.TNC/PUR/PLN/38/93, TNC/
PUR/PLN/39/93 and any other
application for declaration of
Tenancy, forthwith on execution
of this Consent Terms.
Accordingly, the Revision
Applications pending before the
Administrative Tribunal shall
also be withdrawn by the
plaintiff.
6. That the defendants shall be
entitled to partition the respective
portion of land, which have been
allotted to them and also seek
Mutation of the same.
7. That the name of the plaintiff
appearing in the Occupant's
Column and the name of Krishna
Bhaichandra Hadfadkar, the
defendant No. 1 appearing in the
Tenant's Column in Form I and
XIV of Survey No. 212/1 of
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
Village Pilerne shall stand deleted
and the names of the defendants
and other legal heirs of late
Bhaichandra Hadfadkar who
have signed these Consent Terms
shall be deleted from the Tenant's
Column in Form No. I and XIV of
the property bearing Survey No.
211/1 of Village
Pilerne....."
29 In terms of compromise, the Civil Court passed
a consent decree on 16th November, 2006. The
consent terms record that Hadfadkar and
Nazareth shall withdraw their claim of
tenancy. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
decide the issue of tenancy was ousted by
section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act. Even the
exclusive jurisdiction to grant a negative
declaration that a person is not a tenant vests
in the Mamalatdar under section 7 of the
Tenancy Act. What has been permitted under
the compromise is surrender/relinquishment of
tenancy by the said Hadfadkar which in law is
completely prohibited by the Tenancy Act.
Surrender could have been permitted only by
the Mamlatdar in accordance with section 10 of
Tenancy Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court was completely ousted. Thus, the so
called compromise recording surrender or
relinquishment by Hadfadkar is null and void
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
and whether it is challenged or not, it has no
legal effect in the eyes of law. The provisions of
Tenancy Act which is a part of agrarian
reforms cannot be allowed to circumvented by
such methods.
30 The effect of the so called settlement is that the
land surveyed under Survey No. 211/1 remains
with the Communidade and the land bearing
Survey No. 212/2 was divided between
Hadfadkar and Nazareth. There is a drastic
consequence of such compromise assuming
that it is valid. In view of section 2 of the Land
Use Act, both the lands which vested in
Hadfadkar under the Tenancy Act, under no
circumstances could have been used for non-
agricultural purpose. If the said Hadfadkar
was not willing to purchase the said lands in
accordance with the Tenancy Act, the same
would have been resumed by the Mamalatdar
and it could have been allotted only to the
category of persons named by the Tenancy Act.
By the modus operandi adopted by the parties
not only the said Hadfadkar purported to sell
his 50% of land Surveyed under Survey No.
212/1, but the purchasers converted the same
for non-agricultural use. Thus, not only the
provisions of Tenancy Act, but the provisions of
the Land Use Act have been circumvented and
nullified by this modus operandi This method
has been adopted to get rid of the complete
prohibition on non-agricultural use imposed by
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
section 2 of the Land Use Act. The object of the
Land Use Act is to ensure that the land vesting
in the tenant in accordance with the provisions
of the Tenancy Act shall not be used for any
non-agricultural use under any circumstances.
The said provision has been given overriding
effect over the statutes like the Town and
Country Planning Act and the Land Revenue
Code. By adopting the aforesaid modus
operandi, the parties have successfully got rid
of the prohibition imposed by section 2.
36. Matter in hand though not similar, it gives the colour of
allowing Comunidade and the private respondents use the respective
land as of their own without any hindrance or objection.
37. Tenancy Court has already decided in favour of the private
respondents declaring them as tenants of the entire survey holding
bearing survey nos. 448 and 444. Such proceedings were admittedly
not contested by Comunidade even though notice were served on
them. Thus, a competent Court declared the private respondents as
tenants of the entire land. Once declaration exists, private
respondents are required to be considered as tenants of the entire
land and accordingly, to be considered as deemed owner on the tillers
day.
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
38. Compromise terms agreed between the parties would clearly go
to show that there is no consensus with the order passed by the
tenancy Court and more specifically declaring the private
respondents as tenants will have to be quashed and set aside. Besides,
terms further show that parties are ready to divide the said land in
40:60 ratio between Comunidade and the tenants. It also shows that
private respondents are considered as the absolute owner of 60% and
not as the tenant. Thus, it is clear that compromise terms would
suggest that without conducting the proceedings for purchase of the
land under the Agricultural Tenancy Act private respondents will be
declared as absolute owners of the 60% of the land. Other
consequences of such compromise would be clearly giving away of the
tenancy right of the remaining 40% of the land in favour of the
Comunidade, which cannot be permitted by filing consent terms as
there is specific procedure under the Agricultural Tenancy Act for
giving away the right of a tenant
39. Both the parties, by agreeing to the terms and conditions are
therefore trying to avoid or to bypass the procedure which is
mandatorily required to be followed under the Agricultural Tenancy
Act. Similarly, terms would further show that the private respondents
will be entitled to use their 60% of the land with full ownership rights
and free of any encumbrance. This further would mean that private
respondents as well as Comunidade would be entitled to wipe up the
6th August, 2024.
WP194-2024.DOC
tenancy right and more particularly use of such land other than
agricultural purposes.
40. It is no doubt true that Comunidade will be retaining 40% of
the land; however, terms and conditions do nowhere suggest that
both parties agree to use such land only for agricultural purposes.
41. In the case of Pilerne Citizens Forum(supra), the Division
Bench has clearly observed that compromise cannot be permitted
when it is completely in breach of provision of Agricultural Tenancy
Act.
42. Learned Administrative Tribunal is therefore, fully justified in
rejecting such a claim. Decisions passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Raghupati R. Bhandari and Pilerne
Citizens Forum (supra) are not only applicable to the matter in
hand but also binding being delivered by the larger Bench.
43. Thus, no infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition must fail and the same stands dismissed.
44. Rule stands discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs.
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
6th August, 2024.
