The court upheld that compromises undermining statutory tenant rights and procedural requirements of the Tenancy Act are legally invalid and represent an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Delay of 146 days in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this court is a ‘Communidade’¹[Portugese translation of the English word ‘Community’], or an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common and the income derived from these properties accrues in favour of its members. The system is peculiar to Goa and is based on the concept of collective village ownership, which was originally called as the ‘Gaunkari System’ and the village communities owning the land collectively were known as ‘gaunkaria’ which ultimately came to be termed as ‘communidades’ during the Portuguese colonisation of Goa.

3. Under challenge before us in this Appeal is the judgment dated 06.08.2024 by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, stood dismissed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

4. The High Court while doing so has upheld the order dated 13.04.2023 by which the Administrative Tribunal, Goa has refused to grant permission to the Appellant to compromise proceedings instituted by the private respondents herein (respondent Nos. 3 to 11) under the GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT , 1964 (hereinafter ‘Tenancy Act, 1964’).

5. At the outset, it is necessary to mention here at this stage that the administration of Comunidades is governed by the Code of Comunidades (hereinafter ‘the Code’). Article 154 (3) of the Code empowers the Administrative Tribunal to grant permission to the Communidade to compromise terms in any suit to which the Communidade is a party.

6. The facts which have led to filing of the Writ Petition before the High Court can be summarised as under:

a) Two properties (hereinafter ‘Suit Properties’) belonging to the appellant, known as “Oiteil-De-Madel” bearing Survey No. 448/0 & “Levelechy Aradi” bearing Survey No. 440/0 are situated in the village of Tivim in the taluka of Bardez in Goa and were leased to the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents by the appellant, in July, 1978.

b) A civil suit was filed by the predecessor of the private respondents praying that his name be entered in the Tenants column in the Survey numbers which correspond to the two properties mentioned above. This suit was decreed on 08.01.1986 & consequently, the name of the predecessor of the private respondents was entered as tenant of the two properties. Since no appeal was preferred against the decree passed by the Trial Court, the same attained finality. Thereafter, predecessor of the private respondents herein passed away on 01.02.2015.

c) On 08.12.2016, the private respondents herein filed Tenancy Application No. 71/2016 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division (B-Court), Bicholim (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) for declaration of Tenancy under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act, 1964. Despite service of notice to the appellant by the Trial Court, no appearance was entered on its behalf, which led to the case being proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.

d) Vide Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2017, Trial Court allowed the Tenancy Application, consequently declaring the private respondents as agricultural tenants of the Suit Properties. Aggrieved by the declaration of tenancy, the appellant preferred Tenancy Appeal before the Ad-hoc District Judge-I at Mapusa, Goa (hereinafter ‘Appellate Court’).

e) The above-mentioned appeal remains pending before the Appellate Court till date. All the same, during pendency of the Tenancy Appeal, an Extraordinary