Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a dispute over a property measuring 3000 square metres bearing Survey No.1 Sub Division No.14 of village Paliem, Bardez, Goa. The original proceedings were initiated before the Mamlatdar of Bardez by Antonio Da Costa Frias, who claimed to have inherited the paddy field known as 'Moloi' and sought a negative declaration under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 that the opponents, including Ratnakant Ramchandra Salgaonkar and Raghunath R. Salgaonkar, were not tenants. The application was filed on 11 August 1993 and registered as Case No.TNC/SR/28/93. It was preceded by a notice under Section 18C of the Act, dated 1 June 1993, which indicated that the tenants were Raghunath Ramchandra Salgaonkar and Ramakant Ramachandra Salgaonkar, though it was later alleged that Raghunath was actually Navnath Vishnu Salgaonkar. Navnath filed an intervention application on 28 October 1993, claiming to be in possession of half of the paddy field along with Ratnakar Salgaonkar for over 40 years. In their written statements before the Mamlatdar, the opponents denied the landlord's claim and asserted tenancy rights; Ratnakar admitted that Raghunath and Navnath were the same person. The record also contained a Form IIA notice under Rule 4, indicating the Mamlatdar's duty to ascertain willingness of tenants to purchase the land under Section 18C. The proceedings resulted in terms of compromise filed on 6 November 1996, which recorded that the applicant had sold an area of 3000 sq.mtrs of the suit property to the opponents, who were in possession for over 40 years, and that the remaining part of the property was to remain with the applicant. An access of 6 metres width was reserved on the eastern side for both parties. The applicant declared that he would have no further right, title, or interest over the sold portion. The provided judgment excerpt does not include the detailed arguments advanced before the High Court, the analysis of the court, or the final decision in the Second Appeal No.43 of 2011; the excerpt ends with the terms of compromise and does not state the court's holding on the appeal.
Issue of Consideration
SECOND APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2011
Law Points
- Tenancy declaration under Section 7 of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act
- 1964
- Deemed purchase of tenanted land under Section 18B of the said Act
- Duty of Mamlatdar under Section 18C to ascertain tenant's willingness to purchase
- Correction of tenant's name in revenue records
- Binding nature of compromise terms in tenancy proceedings
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 82
Second Appeal No. 43 of 2011
Smt. Bharati H. Dangre, J.
Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms. R. Pereira for appellants; Mr. M.B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Karishma Betquecar for respondents
Shri Ratnakant Ramchandra Salgaonkar (deceased) through legal representatives: Ramakant Ratnakant Salgaonkar, Vishranti Ramakant Salgaonkar, Pradeep Ratnakant Salgaonkar, Sarita Pradeep Salgaonkar, Datta Ratnakant Salgaonkar, Shanti Datta Salgaonkar, Amrut Ratnakar Salgaonkar (deceased), Vijay Ratnakant Salgaonkar
Shri Navnath Vishnu Salgaonkar alias Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Salgaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over agricultural tenancy rights and ownership of property bearing Survey No.1 Sub Division No.14 at Paliem, Bardez, Goa, arising from an application for declaration under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
Remedy Sought
Original applicant Antonio Da Costa Frias sought a negative declaration that the opponents were not tenants in respect of the suit paddy field; subsequently the matter progressed through compromise and came before the High Court in second appeal.
Filing Reason
The original applicant claimed to have inherited the paddy field and, after receiving notice about purchase, found the opponents' names recorded as tenants in revenue records, leading to the filing of the declaration application.
Previous Decisions
Terms of compromise were recorded before the Mamlatdar of Bardez on 06-11-1996, under which 3000 sq.mtrs of the suit property was sold to the opponents and the remaining portion retained by the applicant; the subsequent procedural history leading to the second appeal is not detailed in the excerpt.
Judgment Excerpts
The dispute in the proceedings revolves around a property measuring 3000 sq. mtrs. bearing Survey No. 1 Sub Division No. 14 of village Paliem, within jurisdiction of Village Panchayat of Paliem Taluka and Sub District Bardez, State of Goa.
That the applicant has sold an area of 3000 sq. mtrs of the suit property i.e. of survey No. 1 Sub. Div. No. 14 (Part), situated at Uccassaim-Paliem to the opponents which the opponents are in possession and enjoyment for past 40 years till today.
The applicant hereby declare that he shall not have any kind of right, title, interest claims and demands of whatsoever...
Procedural History
The original proceedings were instituted on 11-08-1993 before the Mamlatdar of Bardez by Antonio Da Costa Frias under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. An intervention application by Navnath Vishnu Salgaonkar was filed on 28-10-1993 and allowed. Terms of compromise were filed on 06-11-1996. Subsequently, the matter came before the High Court of Bombay at Goa as Second Appeal No.43 of 2011, which was reserved on 11-02-2021 and pronounced on 25-02-2021.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Section 7, Section 18B, Section 18C
