JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---The point for consideration which arises in the present petition is whether a Mamlatdar acting under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the said Act) is empowered to entertain an application for negative declaration to the effect that the opponent is not a tenant under the said Act.

2. The facts in brief relevant for decision are that the respondents No. 4 and 5 herein filed an application against the petitioners seeking a declaration that the petitioners who are the opponents in the said application were not the tenants in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 242 situated at Sancoale, Mormugao prior to the commencement of the enforcement of the Fifth Amendment to the said Act and even subsequent thereto. The application was filed in March, 1992. The petitioners herein while contesting the proceedings raised a preliminary point of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar, to issue such a negative declaration. The Mamlatdar the respondent No. 3 while rejecting the preliminary objection by its Order dated 5th April, 1994, held that in view of the Fifth Amendment to the said Act, the Court of Mamlatdar is entitled to decide that a particular person was or was not a tenant and that the positive declaration implies negative one and as such, the enquiry could proceed under section 7 of the said Act. The appeal preferred against the same was allowed by the Deputy Collector by his Order dated 17th April, 1995, and the Order of the Mamlatdar was set aside. The respondents herein preferred revision against the said Order before the Administrative Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by its Order dated 7th July, 1997 upholding the Order of the Mamlatdar. It was held by the Tribunal that the landlord's application for negative declaration was maintainable before the Mamlatdar.

3. At this stage, it is to be noted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondents No. 4 to 6 herein also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco on 9th April, 1997 praying for declaration that the defendants No. 1 and 2 who are the petitioners herein were/are not tenants of the suit property and that they are not the deemed purchasers of the said property under the said Act and also for permanent injunction. It is equally necessary to note that the petitioners herein had filed an application for purchase of the suit property in terms of section 18-C of the said Act consequent to their name having been entered in the Record of Rights in respect of the said property and by Order dated 17th April, 1997, the Joint Mamlatdar (II) of Mormugao Taluka had fixed the purchase price of the suit property to be Rs. 8,810/- under the said Act and the petitioners had accordingly deposited the said amount in terms of section 18-H of the said Act with the Joint Mamlatdar consequent to which the petitioners were issued necessary certificate in Form III.A under the said Act.

4. Shri M.S. Sonak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned Order submitted that the provisions contained in the said Act do not empower the Mamlatdar to issue negative declaration sought for by the respondents No. 4 to 6 and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the Order passed by the Deputy Collector. He further submitted that the Tribunal was bound by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 306 of 1996 dated 10th October, 1996 which was brought to the notice of the tribunal and which was directly on the point in issue and in relation to the provisions contained in the said Act and, therefore, by not following the same, the Tribunal acted illegally and in improper exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Drawing my attention to the fact of filing of the Civil Suit No. 19 of 1997 by the respondents No. 4 to 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document