Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the refusal of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, to grant permission to the appellant, a Communidade under the Code of Comunidades, to compromise tenancy proceedings with private respondents. The appellant, an agricultural association with collective village ownership, owned two properties leased to the predecessors of the private respondents in 1978. In 1986, a civil suit decreed the predecessor as a tenant. After the predecessor's death, the private respondents filed a tenancy application in 2016 seeking declaration of tenancy under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The trial court allowed it ex-parte in 2017. The appellant filed a tenancy appeal and, during its pendency, resolved in 2021 to compromise by bifurcating the land in a 60:40 ratio, with 60% to the private respondents and 40% retained by the appellant. The consent terms were forwarded to the Administrative Tribunal for approval under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades. The Tribunal refused permission on 13.04.2023, finding that the terms effectively wiped out the tenancy declaration without testing its correctness on appeal and conferred freehold ownership and non-agricultural use rights in violation of the Tenancy Act and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which dismissed the writ petition on 06.08.2024. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the compromise was in its best interest and that Article 30(4)(g) empowered the Communidade to deliberate on compromise. The State, supporting the Tribunal, argued that the consent terms bypassed the statutory modes of tenancy termination and purchase under Sections 9, 10, 11, and Chapter IIA of the Tenancy Act and permitted non-agricultural use in contravention of Section 2 of the Land Use Act. The Supreme Court examined the consent terms and found that they would set aside the 2017 judgment without appeal, terminate tenancy outside the statutory modes, grant full ownership without following the deemed purchase procedure, and allow land use forbidden by law. The Court held that such a compromise is an abuse of process and cannot be sanctioned. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Compromise of Tenancy Proceedings - Consent terms cannot override statutory modes of termination and deemed purchase procedure under Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Sections 9, 10, 11, 18A, 18C, 18D, 18K - The proposed consent terms effectively terminated tenancy declared by a court without adhering to the specific modes in Section 9 and conferred full ownership rights on tenants bypassing the purchase procedure under Chapter IIA. Held that such a compromise falls foul of the statutory framework and cannot be permitted (Paras 16-17). B) Land Use Regulation - Restriction on Non-Agricultural Use - Section 2, Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 - The consent terms allowed both parties to use the land for any purpose, which is expressly prohibited for tenanted lands under Section 2. Held that the compromise violated this provision and was rightly denied (Paras 18-19). C) Abuse of Process - Compromise to Defeat Law - Courts may refuse to recognize a settlement that seeks to circumvent statutory mandates - The settlement was a ploy to defeat the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act. Held that the Administrative Tribunal correctly refused permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, as such a compromise constitutes an abuse of process (Paras 13, 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant the appellant permission to compromise proceedings with the private respondents under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that the proposed consent terms violated the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, and constituted an abuse of process. The Administrative Tribunal's refusal of permission under Article 154(3) was correct. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Termination of tenancy must be as per statutory modes under Section 9
- Tenancy Act
- compromise cannot set aside judicial declaration of tenancy
- Chapter IIA of Tenancy Act provides for deemed purchase by tenant
- tenants cannot acquire full ownership without following purchase procedure
- Section 2 of Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act prohibits non-agricultural use of tenanted land
- consent terms that override statutory provisions are void
- Article 154(3) of Code of Comunidades requires Administrative Tribunal permission but such permission not to be granted if compromise is illegal
