IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 7 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 covers both positive and negative declaration.
Only Mamlatdar is conferred with power to decide whether a person is or is not a tenant of the disputed property.
Ordinary civil courts shall have jurisdiction only if Mamlatdar rejects the plea.

Judgment :-

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th of June, 2000 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Panaji in Letters Patent Appeal No.9 of 1999 whereby the appeal was dismissed by the High Court based on the decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.44 of 1998 decided on 13th of June, 2000.

2. Therelevant facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant is the owner of a property called VAGAD, survey No. 131, sub-division No. 33 and 37 situated at Paliem, Taluka Pernem, Goa, (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property"). Three persons namely Vassu, Shankar and Bhiva were recorded as tenants in respect of the disputed property in 1972 and the present respondents are their heirs and legal representatives. The appellant applied before the Court of Mamlatdar at Pernem, for a declaration that the respondents were not tenants of the disputed property within the meaning of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (in short "Goa Tenancy Act). The Mamlatdar, after a detailed enquiry into the facts, passed an order on 28th of October 1986 granting the aforesaid declaration in respect of the disputed property. In appeal, the Deputy Collector dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Mamlatdar, by an order dated 5th of January 1992.

Further, an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal was taken, which reversed the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar, by an order dated 30th of June, 1997 by re-appreciating the evidence on record. The appellant filed a writ petition being WP No. 113 of 1998, before the High Court of Bombay at Panaji, challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, there was no power vested with the Mamlatdar to grant negative declaration. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 9 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. As noted herein earlier, the same was dismissed vide its judgment dated 26th of June, 2000. Thereafter, the appellant had filed this special leave petition in this Court, which on grant of leave was heard by us in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and examined the materials on record. The issue which we have to deal with while disposing of this appeal is whether under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar was vested with the authority to grant a negative declaration to the effect that a particular person is/was not a tenant when any such dispute is/was referred to him for his decision.

4. Before going into the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary for us to refer to objects and reasons for enacting the Goa Tenancy Act. This Act has been enacted to provide for the regulation of the terms of tenancy with respect to agricultural lands in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and for matters connected therewith. Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act reads as under :-

"Section 7: Question of tenancy:- If any question arises whether any person is or was a tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act the Mamlatdar shall, after holding an inquiry, decide such question.

In any such enquiry, the Mamlatdar shall presume that any statement as to the existence of a right of tenancy in a record of rights prepared in the prescribed manner under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, is true."

5. As noted hereinearlier, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court decided that the Mamlatdar did not have any jurisdiction to grant a negative declaration following the ratio of its decision in LPA No. 44 of 1998. On a consideration of the objects and reasons of the Goa Tenancy Act and the relevant provisions of the same, we are of the view that although Section 7 of the Goa