Latest news with #GoaLandUse(Regulation)Act
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
‘Compromise sought is nothing but abuse of law — Supreme Court upholds HC order in tenancy dispute in Goa
The Supreme Court Monday upheld an order of the Bombay High Court at Goa, which refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by an agricultural association of villagers with tenants, observing that the proposed terms are an attempt to circumvent the statutory framework laid down in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and also violates the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the 'Comunidade' – an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common – of Tivim regarding a tenancy dispute over two properties in Tivim village in Bardez taluka, Goa. The properties were leased by the Comunidade to tenants in 1978. A civil suit was filed by the predecessor of private respondents for entering their name as tenants in the survey numbers for the two properties. The suit was decreed in 1986 and the name of the predecessor of respondents was entered as tenant of properties. After the predecessor passed away, the private respondents filed a tenancy application before a trial court. In 2017, the trial court allowed the tenancy application, declaring the private respondents as agricultural tenants of the properties. Aggrieved by the declaration of tenancy, the Comunidade filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which remains pending. During pendency of the appeal, the Comunidade resolved that as a compromise, the land in dispute be bifurcated, with 60 percent of the land being allotted to the tenants and 40 percent land to be retained by the Comunidade. The Administrative Tribunal refused to grant permission to the Comunidade for filing of the consent terms in 2023 under Article 154 (3) of the Code of Communides. The Comunidade then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision last year. The Supreme Court held that the administrative tribunal has rightly refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by the Comunidade. In the judgment, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, '…the proposed consent terms or the compromise sought to be entered by the appellant with the private respondents falls foul of both the statutes i.e. the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, in so far as it creates freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant and secondly, for the reason that these terms effectively allow the appellant, as well as the private respondents, to use an agricultural land for non agricultural purposes.' The court said the compromise not only circumvents procedural aspects of the Tenancy Act, but also allows the parties to use the suit properties for a purpose which is expressly barred by the Land Use Act. 'The compromise sought by the parties is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The so-called compromise or agreement is a ploy to defeat the provisions of law and therefore it has been rightly denied the legal sanctity which was sought. If the proposed consent terms are to be allowed, not only would the tenant be conferred full ownership rights, in complete disregard of the procedure for purchase mentioned above, but it would also mean that the tenant would be conferred a right to alienate land, without seeking permission of any statutory authority,' the Court said. 'It is abundantly clear that by means of the proposed compromise, the parties have essentially terminated the tenancy, without recourse to any of the modes referred to in Section 9 of the [Tenancy] Act,' the court added.
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
