1. Dispute regarding the refusal of an Administrative Tribunal to grant permission for a compromise in proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1053
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Communidade Of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 9470 of 2025 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). of 2025) @ Diary No. 16901 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
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.
Headnote:(A) Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades - Appeal dismissed concerning permission to compromise tenancy dispute. The Administrative Tribunal rightly refused to permit terms that circumvent statutory rights and violate the Tenancy Act and Land Use Act, granting full ownership improperly. (Paras 6-19)
(B) Consent Terms - The proposed compromise creates rights contrary to the statutory framework governing tenancy and land use, constituting an abuse of legal process. (Paras 12-19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Communidade, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their Writ Petition against the Administrative Tribunal's order denying permission to compromise a tenancy dispute regarding two properties. The private respondents were declared tenants after a civil suit.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the Administrative Tribunal's refusal for the compromise, asserting it attempted to negate tenants' established rights and violated statutory provisions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Administrative Tribunal rightly refused permission for a compromise that would bypass the Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the proposed consent terms to violate fundamental statutory provisions, affirming that compromises contravening the law cannot be sanctioned.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Reversion in the context of property law generally refers to the return of a property to the original owner or a superior estate after the termination of a lesser estate or interest. In the provided judgment, the Court emphasizes that compromises or agreements that attempt to circumvent statutory rights and procedural safeguards related to tenancy and land use are invalid and constitute an abuse of process (!) (!) .
Specifically, the Court highlights that any attempt to transfer or alter the rights of tenants—such as conferring full ownership rights or permitting non-agricultural use of land—without following the prescribed statutory procedures, effectively undermines the statutory framework and rights of the original parties, including tenants and the state (!) (!) (!) . Such actions could be viewed as an indirect reversion or reclassification of the land's status, bypassing legal safeguards designed to protect tenant rights and land use regulations.
Furthermore, the Court underscores that statutory provisions governing land rights, purchase procedures, and land use are paramount and cannot be overridden by private agreements or compromises. Any arrangement that seeks to reclassify land from tenancy to ownership or permit its use for purposes other than agriculture, without adhering to the statutory processes, is deemed invalid (!) (!) .
In summary, the Court's stance indicates that reversion of land rights—whether through legal transfer, purchase, or agreement—must strictly comply with statutory procedures. Attempts to bypass these provisions, especially through compromises that undermine tenant rights or permit non-agricultural use, are legally invalid and can be challenged as an abuse of process.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims the compromise serves its best interests and is empowered by the Code; Respondent argues it bypasses the Tenancy Act and Land Use Act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The proposed compromise circumvents statutory procedures for tenancy termination and land purchase, while illegally permitting non-agricultural use of agricultural land. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. A compromise agreement cannot be sanctioned if it bypasses statutory frameworks for tenancy termination, land purchase procedures, or land-use regulations. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order upholding the Administrative Tribunal's refusal to grant permission for the compromise is maintained. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Can a Communidade enter into a compromise in a civil suit without the Administrative Tribunal's sanction?
No. While Article 30(4)(g) of the Code empowers a Communidade to deliberate upon terms of compromise, such terms must be forwarded to the Administrative Tribunal for sanction under Article 154(3). (Para 5 , 20 )
7. Under what conditions can a tenancy be terminated under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964?
Tenancy can only be terminated through three modes: surrender by the tenant under Section 10, termination by the landlord on specific grounds under Section 11, or under other specific provisions of the Act. (Para 16 )
8. Can a tenant acquire full ownership of agricultural land through a private compromise agreement?
No. Acquisition of ownership must follow the statutory procedure under Chapter IIA of the Tenancy Act, including public notice and payment of purchase price, and is subject to restrictions on alienation. (Para 17 )
9. Can agricultural land vested in a tenant be used for non-agricultural purposes via a compromise?
No. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, expressly prohibits the use of land vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act for any purpose other than agriculture. (Para 18 , 19 )
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 General Body Meeting of the appellant was held on 14.03.2021, in which members of the appellant deliberated upon the Tenancy Appeal and also considered the fact that if the appeal fails, they stand to lose a major chunk of land held by the Communidade. It is at this meeting that the Communidade resolved that as a compromise, the land in dispute could be bifurcated into a 60:40 sharing ratio, with 60% of the land being allotted to the private respondents and 40% of the land to be retained by the commu
