Summary
A Goan Communidade sought the Administrative Tribunal's permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades to compromise a pending tenancy appeal by dividing the tenanted land 60:40 with the declared tenants, each side taking ownership-like rights usable for any purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of permission, holding that the compromise would terminate a declared tenancy outside the modes in Section 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, bypass the Chapter IIA purchase procedure and the Section 18K bar on transfer, and permit non-agricultural use prohibited by Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, and was therefore an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether the Administrative Tribunal was correct in refusing the Communidade permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades to compromise tenancy proceedings with the private respondents.
- Whether consent terms that confer ownership-like rights over tenanted agricultural land and allow its use for any purpose are permissible under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991.
- Whether Article 30(4)(g) of the Code of Comunidades empowers a Communidade to enter into a compromise without the Administrative Tribunal's sanction.
Provisions considered
- Article 154(3), Code of Comunidades (Goa)The provision empowers the Administrative Tribunal to permit a Communidade to compromise a suit to which it is a party; the Tribunal rightly refused permission because the consent terms would set aside the tenancy declaration by agreement instead of testing it on merits and were contrary to statute. (¶¶ 5, 7, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 30(4)(g), Code of Comunidades (Goa)This merely empowers a Communidade to deliberate upon terms of compromise, which on finalisation must be forwarded to the Administrative Tribunal; it does not confer an unfettered power to compromise without the Tribunal's sanction. (¶¶ 9, 20)
- Section 9 (with Sections 10 and 11), Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964Tenancy can be terminated only by the tenant's surrender under Section 10, by the landlord on the grounds in Section 11, or under another specific provision of the Act; the proposed compromise terminated the declared tenancy without recourse to any of these modes. (¶ 16)
- Chapter IIA, Sections 18A, 18C, 18D and 18K, Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964A tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the tillers' day subject to the statutory procedure (public notice by the Mamlatdar, purchase price per the Section 18D table), and under Section 18K may not transfer purchased land without the Mamlatdar's prior permission; the consent terms would confer full ownership and a free right to alienate in disregard of this procedure. (¶¶ 17, 19)
- Section 2, Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991Land vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act cannot be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture; the consent terms permitting both parties to use their shares for any purpose fell foul of this express bar. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Held
- A compromise by which a Communidade and declared tenants divide tenanted land and confer on each other ownership-like rights terminates the tenancy without recourse to any of the modes prescribed in Section 9 of the Tenancy Act, bypasses the Chapter IIA procedure for purchase of land by the tenant and the Section 18K restriction on transfer, and permits non-agricultural use barred by Section 2 of the Land Use Act. Such a compromise is contrary to statute, is a ploy to defeat the provisions of law and an abuse of process, and was rightly denied sanction. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The Administrative Tribunal rightly refused permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades where the consent terms would wipe out the tenancy declared by the trial court and set aside that judgment by agreement rather than by testing its correctness on merits in the pending appeal. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Article 30(4)(g) of the Code of Comunidades only empowers a Communidade to deliberate upon terms of compromise, which must then be forwarded to the Administrative Tribunal; it does not confer an unfettered power to compromise without the Tribunal's sanction. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 06.08.2024 upholding the Administrative Tribunal's refusal affirmed; no opinion expressed on the merits of the tenancy claim, and the pending Tenancy Appeal to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law; pending applications disposed of.