Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa concerning the Corlim Khazan in Tiswadi Taluka, Goa. The petitioner, Dr. Jainath Dhulapkar, arraigned the State of Goa and its revenue and agriculture authorities as respondents 1 to 5, along with the Corlim Khazan Tenants Association and its office bearers as respondents 6 to 8. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ. on 4 January 2023. The court made the rule returnable with consent at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. During the hearing, the learned Advocate General informed the court that the repairs and reconstruction of the sluice gates and related bund work at Corlim Khazan had been completed. A communication dated 3 January 2023, from the Executive Engineer, Soil Conservation Division, Directorate of Agriculture, was placed on record. The communication stated that the agency had completed both sluice gate works, namely Bandara and Mangerar, including construction of wing wall of the Bandara sluice gate, replacement of wooden structures of both sluice gates, painting with wood preservative, and plastering of abutment walls. It requested the Corlim Khazan Tenants Association to take over possession of both sluice gates. The communication also noted instances of deliberate damaging of sluice gate wooden structures for flooding khazan lands for pisciculture purposes and requested the association to keep watch and ward over operation of sluice gates and restrict intake of saline water up to the capacity of the water body or poiem of the khazan lands. The Advocate General submitted that the State Government had incurred a cost of ₹4.85 crores for these repairs, but deliberate and malicious damage to bunds and sluice gates had been reported, rendering khazan fields inundated and impossible for agricultural activities; this was done mainly to undertake illegal fishing even without holding any auction. The court directed that the Mamlatdar would within ten days communicate the date for handing over possession to the association, and counsel for the association stated that the association would take possession on that date. The court then examined the statutory framework under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975. Rule 2(d) defines Association as a group of tenants who have become deemed purchasers under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976, and who jointly derive benefit from a common major bund or bunds in a locality and are recognized by the Mamlatdar. Rule 3 prescribes constitution and recognition. Rule 4 assigns to the General Body functions such as considering conservancy, maintenance, and repairs of bunds and sluice gates, and deciding terms and conditions of lease of fishing rights. Rule 5 imposes on members the duty to watch and ward bunds as assigned by the Managing Committee. Rule 6(5) makes the Managing Committee responsible for taking all steps necessary for conservancy, maintenance or repairs, preparing estimates from Soil Conservation Division, auctioning fishing rights, leasing out trees on bunds, and taking immediate steps for closer breaches; Explanation-1 to Rule 6(5) provides for collective functioning and joint responsibility of all members for acts of omission and commission. Rule 6(11) empowers the Mamlatdar to call for records and, in case of complaints of non-compliance, direct delivery of records, money or other property, and make appropriate orders for compliance. The court noted these rules to emphasize the association's statutory duties and the Mamlatdar's supervisory control. In the operative part, the court recorded the completion of repairs and the agreement for handover, thereby ensuring that the repaired infrastructure would be placed in the custody of the association with a direction to keep vigilance. The judgment concluded without awarding any other specific relief to the petitioner, indicating that the statutory scheme adequately addressed the maintenance and prevention concerns.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Constitution and Recognition of Tenants Association - Rule 2(d) and Rule 3 of Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975 - The rules define an association as a group of deemed purchasers under the 1976 Amendment Act who jointly derive benefit from a common bund and are recognized by the Mamlatdar - The court noted that the Corlim Khazan Tenants Association was constituted under these rules and recognized by the Mamlatdar - Held that the association is the appropriate body to take over and manage the repaired sluice gates (Para 7). B) Tenancy Law - Functions of General Body - Rule 4 of Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975 - General Body to consider conservancy, maintenance and repairs of bunds, sluice gates and to decide terms of fishing rights - Court highlighted that these are statutorily prescribed functions, including auction of fishing rights - Held that the General Body has a duty to ensure proper upkeep of khazan infrastructure (Paras 8-9). C) Tenancy Law - Duties of Members and Managing Committee - Rules 5 and 6(5) of Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975 - Members to watch and ward bunds; Managing Committee responsible for repairs, estimates, auctioning fishing rights, and immediate action on breaches with joint liability - The court noted the collective responsibility of the Managing Committee and the duty to act through the Soil Conservation Division - Held that these duties underpin the direction to keep vigilance (Paras 10-11). D) Administrative Law - Control of Mamlatdar over Tenants Association - Rule 6(11) of Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975 - Mamlatdar empowered to call for records and direct delivery of property on non-compliance - The court referred to this control mechanism as part of the statutory scheme - Held that the Mamlatdar has supervisory jurisdiction over the association's functioning (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the repairs/reconstruction of the sluice gates and bunds of Corlim Khazan had been completed; whether the Corlim Khazan Tenants Association should take over possession and be responsible for maintenance and prevention of damage; and the scope of statutory functions and control of the association under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975
Final Decision
The court recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the repairs/reconstruction of the sluice gates and bunds at Corlim Khazan were complete at a cost of ₹4.85 crores. The court directed that the Mamlatdar would within ten days communicate the date for handing over possession of the sluice gates to the Corlim Khazan Tenants Association, and the association agreed to take possession. The court also noted the statutory duties of the association and the Mamlatdar's control under the 1975 Rules to prevent deliberate damage and illegal fishing.
Law Points
- Rule 2(d) of the 1975 Rules defines a tenants association
- Rule 3 provides for constitution and recognition
- Rule 4 prescribes functions of General Body including maintenance and fishing rights
- Rule 5 imposes watch and ward duty on members
- Rule 6(5) makes Managing Committee responsible for repairs and estimates
- Rule 6(11) gives Mamlatdar control over records
- Rule 6(15) provides for further control
- State repair of sluice gates at cost of 4.85 crores
- deliberate damage to bunds/sluice gates for illegal fishing prohibited
