Back
2009 Supreme(Bom) 657
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
SMT. R.S. DALVI, J.
Smt. Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar and others - Petitioners
Versus
Custodian of Evacuee Property and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 142 of 2009
Decided on : 8th May, 2009
Mr. M.B. D’Costa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.J. Pangam, for the petitioners;
Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, GA. for the respondent No. 1;
Mrs. A. Agni, for the respondent No. 2.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence of actual cultivation, payment of rent, and possession in determining tenancy rights under the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the impact of injunction orders on such claims.
Headnote:
Agricultural Tenancy - Dispute over possession of land under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1963 and the Amended Custodian of Evacuee Property Act - Sections 7, 8-A, 56
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Shantaram and Vasudev over possession of agricultural land. Shantaram claimed tenancy under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Amended Custodian of Evacuee Property Act, while Vasudev claimed tenancy rights in the same land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Vasudev's claim of tenancy rights was supported by evidence of actual cultivation, payment of rent, and possession, despite an initial order of injunction obtained by Shantaram. The court also considered the relationship between the parties and their common residence.
Issues: The main issues were the conflicting claims of tenancy rights, the impact of the initial injunction, and the validity of rent receipts and other documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence of actual cultivation, payment of rent, and possession to determine Vasudev's tenancy rights. It also considered the statutory presumption from revenue records and the impact of the initial injunction on the parties' claims.
Final Decision: Vasudev was declared the tenant of specific survey numbers, confirming his tenancy rights in part of the disputed land. The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the lower authorities.
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.–Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The orders which are challenged in this writ petition are the order of the Mamlatdar, Bicholim, Goa dated 30th August, 2002, the order of the Deputy Collector, Bicholim, Goa dated 8.1.2003 and the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa dated 30.12.2008, the Exhibits g, h and i to the petition. These orders are passed upon the application made to the Mamlatdar's Court by the respondent No. 2 herein (Vasudev) under Sections 7 and 8-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1963 read with Section 56 of the Amended Custodian of Evacuee Property Act. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners herein, who was a relative of Vasudev (one Shantaram), claimed to be the tenant under the aforesaid Acts and claims to have been treated as such. The main lis is between these parties. They shall be referred by their respective names.
3. The dispute between Shantaram and Vasudev commenced at least from 1984. Shantaram filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D., Bicholim restraining Vasudev as well as 2 others, who have since not contested the claim, from interfering with the property in that suit claimed by Shantaram. Civil Miscellaneous Application taken by Shantaram being CMA No. 155/1984 came to be granted. The properties claimed by Shantaram were Survey Nos. 113, 114 and 116. Shantaram relied upon form No. 1 and XIV in respect of those properties which showed the name of the custodian in the occupation column. He claimed to pay rent to the custodian of evacuee property. He relied upon notice issued by the custodian dated 9.7.1982, 27.7.1982 and letters dated 10.6.1976 and 25.1.1977. The Court saw that there was a house of Vasudev also in the suit properties. Upon the documents of Shantaram the ex parte injunction granted in the suit was confirmed restraining Vasudev from interfering in the suit properties. Vasudev was allowed entry and exist to his houses in the suit properties. It appears that Vasudev interfered with Shantaram's possession. Shantaram was given police protection.
4. Vasudev filed another suit in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D., Bicholim being suit No. 60 of 1990 five years after the injunction order was granted and when, it was in force. He obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction against Shantaram in respect of inter alia Survey Nos. 114 and 116. Shantaram took out an application for vacating the injunction. That was heard along with Vasudev's application for confirmation of injunction. Vasudev claimed injunction inter alia in respect of Survey Nos. 114 and 116. It was seen by the Court that Vasudev could not enter upon or interfere with Shantaram's possession in Survey Nos. 114 and 116 and hence he could not have obtained the order of ex parte injunction. Shantaram alleged oral compromise between the parties under which he claimed to be in possession of the property claimed by him in his suit. The learned Judge observed that the fact was not mentioned in the written statement of Vasudev filed in Shantaram's earlier suit. Shantaram contended that there could have been no transaction of settlement between the parties without the consent of the custodian of evacuee property or without his knowledge. The compromise alleged by Vasudev was held to be an afterthought. Vasudev was held to have suppressed material facts, misrepresented them and introduced the new fact of compromise in his subsequent suit and claimed 1/4th share in the suit property. Vasudev claimed that he paid rent to Shantaram to be paid to the custodian of evacuee property. Strictures were passed against Vasudev. He was held to have come to Court with uncleaned hands and to have committed contempt of Court. The ex parte ad interim order of injunction granted to him came to be vacated and show-cause notice was issued to him to show-cause why action should not be taken against him for having committed contempt of that Court.
5. That application came to be heard
