Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard two connected writ petitions – a public interest petition (WP 294/2008) by Pilerne Citizens Forum and a suo motu petition (WP 1/2008) initiated on a newspaper report – both challenging the alleged illegal alienation of large tracts of agricultural land held by the Communidade of Pilerne. The background involved the Communidade's lands (Survey No. 211/1 and 212/1) where one Krishna Hadfadkar was recorded as a tenant. He was declared a deemed purchaser under Section 18A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and a purchase certificate was issued by the Mamlatdar in 1993 after a notice under Section 18C. The Communidade objected, alleging fraud, and appeals were filed against the purchase certificate and the mutation order allowing the transfer of rights. Meanwhile, the Communidade filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that Hadfadkar was not a tenant, where he challenged the court's jurisdiction. The matter escalated: the Communidade's appeals were dismissed, and it approached the Administrative Tribunal in revision. During the proceedings, the Communidade passed a resolution to compromise the suits with Hadfadkar and another claimant, Jose Nazareth. The Administrative Tribunal granted permission under Articles 154 and 350 of the applicable Goan law, and the civil suit was decreed on consent terms on 14 November 2006. Under the compromise, 50% of Survey No. 212/1 went to Hadfadkar's legal heirs and 50% to Nazareth's legal heirs; both gave up tenancy claims over both lands. Subsequently, sale deeds were executed: Nazareth's heirs sold their share to M/s. Milroc Development Company (7 December 2006), and Hadfadkar's heirs sold their share to private purchasers, with the Communidade being a confirming party (5 January 2007). The Communidade also granted access rights over its adjacent land. The petitioners contended that these transactions breached the mandatory provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and completely defeated the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, which prohibits the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. They alleged that the compromise was a collusive device to enable sale to builders. The High Court heard submissions on 19 July 2010 and reserved judgment, which was pronounced on 5 August 2010, but the operative part is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Tenancy - Deemed Purchase - Sections 18A and 18C of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - The tenant Krishna Hadfadkar was declared deemed purchaser and purchase certificate issued by Mamlatdar; mutation ordered despite Communidade objections that tenancy was fraudulently obtained. (Paras 2, 3)
B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Tenancy Act - The Hadfadkar contended Civil Court had no jurisdiction as tenancy issues are solely for Mamlatdar; the suit ultimately compromised. (Paras 3, 4)
C) Compromise and Consent Decree - Administrative Tribunal Permission - Articles 154 and 350 of applicable Goa law - The Communidade and tenants sought permission to compromise suit; Administrative Tribunal granted permission; consent decree passed dividing land 50% to each tenant, who then sold to builders; Communidade confirmed sales. (Paras 4, 5)
D) Land Use - Protection of Agricultural Land - Section 2 of Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 - The petitioner contended that the sale of agricultural land to builders defeated the purpose of the Act which prohibits non-agricultural use of land vested in tenants. (Paras 1)
E) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - The petition filed by a registered society challenging government inaction and illegal alienation; court took suo motu cognizance based on newspaper report. (Paras 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compromise decree and subsequent sale deeds were in breach of the mandatory provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, and whether they were vitiated by fraud and collusion.
Law Points
- Deemed purchase under Section 18A of Goa Tenancy Act
- Requirement of purchase certificate under Section 18C
- Mutation proceedings under Tenancy Act
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred in tenancy matters
- Compromise of tenancy claims
- Administrative Tribunal's power under Article 154/350 to permit compromise
- Validity of consent decree obtained by collusion/fraud
- Protection of agricultural land under Land Use Act
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 127
Writ Petition No. 294 of 2008 with Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1 of 2008
A.N.S. Nadkarni, Ryan Menezes for petitioner; S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with P. Talaulikar for State; M.B. D'Costa for Communidade; S.G. Aney for R18-19; J.P. Mulgaonkar for R7-12; A.D. Bhobe for R25; V.A. Lawande for R21; M.S. Sonak (Amicus Curiae); A.F. Diniz for R24; P.A. Kamat for R3
Pilerne Citizens Forum (in WP 294/2008) and Suo Motu (in WP 1/2008)
State of Goa, Administrator of Communidades, Communidade of Pilerne, Krishna Bhalchandra Hadfadkar & Ors., Jose Nazareth & Ors., Milroc Development Company & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging illegal alienation of Communidade land to builders.
Remedy Sought
To set aside the alienation of Communidade land and declare the sales void for violation of tenancy and land use laws.
Filing Reason
Alleged breach of mandatory provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act and Land Use Act, and sale of agricultural land to builders after collusive compromise with tenants.
Previous Decisions
Mamlatdar issued purchase certificate; Communidade appealed; Administrative Tribunal permitted compromise and disposed of revision; civil suit decreed on consent; subsequent sale deeds executed.
Issues
Whether the compromise between the Communidade and the tenants, and the consequent sale of land to builders, violated the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964?
Whether the transaction defeated the purpose of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 which restricts use of agricultural land?
Whether the consent decree obtained was vitiated by fraud and collusion?
Whether the provisions of the Tenancy Act regarding deemed purchase and purchase certificate were properly followed?
Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration regarding tenancy?
Judgment Excerpts
The Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2008 is on the basis of a newspaper report regarding the alleged illegal sale of the land held by Communidade of Pilerne to builders after entering into compromise with builders.
It is alleged that Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 which prevents the use of agricultural land vesting in a tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act for any other purpose than the agriculture has been completely defeated.
The compromise was that 50 % of land surveyed under Survey No.212/1 would be allotted to the legal representatives of the said Hadfadkar and remaining 50 % will be allotted to the legal representatives of the said Nazareth. In consideration, the said Hadfadkar and the said Nazareth agreed to give up their claim of tenancy against the 4th Respondent in respect of both the lands.
The Administrative Tribunal by order dated 1 st August 2006 granted permission to compromise the suit.
On the basis of the said application, on 5 th December, 2006, the Administrative Tribunal disposed of the Tenancy Revision Application in view of the compromise between the parties.
Procedural History
1972: Survey promulgated, name of Hadfadkar recorded as tenant. 1993-02-05: Notice under Section 18C issued. 1993-03-07: Mamlatdar fixed purchase price. 1993-08-30: Purchase certificate issued to Hadfadkar. Notice under Rule 34 for mutation; Communidade objected. 1997-10-17: Mamlatdar allowed mutation. Communidade filed appeal before Deputy Collector against mutation and purchase certificate. Stay granted. 1998-03-30: Communidade filed civil suit for declaration that Hadfadkar not tenant. Hadfadkar challenged jurisdiction. Appeal against purchase price fixing order dismissed by Deputy Collector. Communidade filed revision before Administrative Tribunal (Tenancy Revision Application No.24/2001). Communidade passed resolution to compromise. Application to Administrative Tribunal under Art. 154/350 for permission to compromise. 2006-08-01: Administrative Tribunal granted permission. 2006-11-14: Consent terms filed and decree passed. 2006-12-05: Administrative Tribunal disposed of revision. 2006-12-07: Sale deed by Nazareth legal representatives to Milroc Development Company. 2007-01-05: Confirmation of sale by Communidade to purchasers. 2008: Writ petitions filed (WP 294/2008 and Suo Motu WP 1/2008). 2010-07-19: Submissions heard. 2010-08-05: Judgment pronounced.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: 7, 18A, 18C
- Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991: 2
- Agricultural Tenancy Act (Revenue Survey and Record of Rights) Rules, 1967: Rule 34
