The Supreme Court Monday upheld an order of the Bombay High Court at Goa, which refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by an agricultural association of villagers with tenants, observing that the proposed terms are an attempt to circumvent the statutory framework laid down in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and also violates the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the ‘Comunidade’ – an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common – of Tivim regarding a tenancy dispute over two properties in Tivim village in Bardez taluka, Goa. The properties were leased by the Comunidade to tenants in 1978.
A civil suit was filed by the predecessor of private respondents for entering their name as tenants in the survey numbers for the two properties. The suit was decreed in 1986 and the name of the predecessor of respondents was entered as tenant of properties. After the predecessor passed away, the private respondents filed a tenancy application before a trial court.
In 2017, the trial court allowed the tenancy application, declaring the private respondents as agricultural tenants of the properties. Aggrieved by the declaration of tenancy, the Comunidade filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which remains pending. During pendency of the appeal, the Comunidade resolved that as a compromise, the land in dispute be bifurcated, with 60 percent of the land being allotted to the tenants and 40 percent land to be retained by the Comunidade. The Administrative Tribunal refused to grant permission to the Comunidade for filing of the consent terms in 2023 under Article 154 (3) of the Code of Communides. The Comunidade then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision last year.
The Supreme Court held that the administrative tribunal has rightly refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by the Comunidade.
In the judgment, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, “…the proposed consent terms or the compromise sought to be entered by the appellant with the private respondents falls foul of both the statutes i.e. the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, in so far as it creates freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant and secondly, for the reason that these terms effectively allow the appellant, as well as the private respondents, to use an agricultural land for non agricultural purposes.”
The court said the compromise not only circumvents procedural aspects of the Tenancy Act, but also allows the parties to use the suit properties for a purpose which is expressly barred by the Land Use Act.
Story continues below this ad
“The compromise sought by the parties is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The so-called compromise or agreement is a ploy to defeat the provisions of law and therefore it has been rightly denied the legal sanctity which was sought. If the proposed consent terms are to be allowed, not only would the tenant be conferred full ownership rights, in complete disregard of the procedure for purchase mentioned above, but it would also mean that the tenant would be conferred a right to alienate land, without seeking permission of any statutory authority,” the Court said.
“It is abundantly clear that by means of the proposed compromise, the parties have essentially terminated the tenancy, without recourse to any of the modes referred to in Section 9 of the [Tenancy] Act,” the court added.
