High Court Issues Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Tenancy and Mundkar Proceedings in Goa. The Court Recognises Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 as Beneficial Legislation and Emphasises Exclusive Mamlatdar Jurisdiction with Civil Court Bar Under Section 58B.

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose from two writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa by the legal heirs of a deceased person, who sought a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez to dispose of pending tenancy and mundkar proceedings expeditiously and preferably within a time-bound schedule. The petitioners were the legal heirs of late Benjamin Matias D'Lima, while the respondents included the State of Goa, the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez-III at Mapusa, and a private respondent, Francis Fernandes. The immediate grievance was delay in disposal of tenancy and mundkar cases pending before the Mamlatdars and Joint Mamlatdars, which delay was attributed to the officers being occupied with several executive functions, leaving insufficient time for quasi-judicial work under the tenancy and mundkar laws. The High Court issued Rule and, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, made the Rule returnable immediately. The learned Advocate General made a statement that the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez would dispose of the proceedings within six months, and this statement was accepted by the Court. Consequently, the respective Joint Mamlatdars were directed to act accordingly. However, the petitions were not disposed of because the Court was informed that several tenancy and mundkar cases were pending before Mamlatdars and Joint Mamlatdars, and there was delay in disposal primarily due to their engagement in executive functions. The Court therefore directed the State to place on record statistics of pendency in the districts of North Goa and South Goa. The Under Secretary (Revenue) filed affidavits dated 03.10.2022 and 17.02.2023, placing on record the pendency statistics. The Court then examined the legislative scheme of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. It noted that the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 is an Act to regulate the terms of tenancy with respect to agricultural lands in the State of Goa and is a measure of agrarian reform enjoying substantial constitutional immunity. Similarly, the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 was passed to provide better protection to mundkars against eviction from their dwelling houses and to grant them rights to purchase the same. Both legislations were admitted to be beneficial legislations enacted to benefit agricultural tenants and mundkars. The Court observed that under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, various questions such as whether a person is or was a tenant, whether land is used for agricultural purposes, eviction and restoration of possession, relief against threatened wrongful dispossession, surrender by tenant, termination of tenancy, heritability of tenant's rights, and deemed purchase on tillers' day are all to be decided by the Mamlatdar. Appeals from Mamlatdar's orders lie to the Collector and Administrative Tribunal. The Court also highlighted Section 58B of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters required to be decided by the Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Collector, Administrative Tribunal, or Government. Some decisions have taken the view that if such issues arise before a civil court, the court must refer those issues to the Mamlatdar. The final operative directions in the judgment beyond the acceptance of the Advocate General's statement and the direction to file pendency statistics are not fully captured in the provided text, but the Court's analysis clearly emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar and the beneficial nature of these welfare legislations, aiming to ensure expeditious disposal of pending tenancy and mundkar proceedings.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The High Court issued Rule and accepted the Advocate General's statement that the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez would dispose of the proceedings within six months. It directed the State to place on record pendency statistics and noted the beneficial nature of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. Final operative directions beyond these are not fully extracted in the provided text.

Law Points