The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which deems a person lawfully cultivating land to be a tenant, and the strict interpretation of the exemption notification for properties of religious institutions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. C.A. Coutinho for the petitioners and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, the learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita Palyekar for the respondents.

2. The challenge, in this Petition is to the Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2010, made by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa (Tribunal), allowing Tenancy Revision Application No.5/2008, instituted by the respondent and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 24/1/2008, made by the Deputy Collector, Quepem in Appeal No.TNC/APPL/15/2005, declaring the petitioners as “tenants” in respect of the suit property under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (said Act) and the Rules made thereunder.

3. There is no dispute that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Diogo Piedade Cardozo. On 4th October, 2000, the petitioners filed an application before the Joint Mamlatdar of Canacona, which was numbered as Case No. TNC/JT.MAM/NAPA/3/2000, seeking a declaration that they are the tenants of a paddy field known as “Qurem”, surveyed under No.180/6 of Village Nagarcem-Palolem, Taluka Canacona, admeasuring an area of 6675 sq. metres or thereabouts (suit property).

4. The Joint Mamlatdar, vide order dated 11/7/2005, dismissed the petitioners' application dated 4/10/2000, holding that late Diogo Cardozo, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, had held the suit property on the basis of a 'public auction' conducted by the Committee of the Temple and such holding did not create any tenancy under the said Act.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the Joint Mamlatdar's order dated 11/7/2005, appealed to the Deputy Collector of Quepem, which appeal was numbered as Case No.TNC/APPL/15/2005. By the Judgment and Order dated 24/1/2008, the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal, set aside the Joint Mamlatdar's order dated 11/7/2005 and declared the petitioners as tenants of the suit property.

6. The respondent aggrieved by the Deputy Collector's Judgment and Order dated 24/1/2008, instituted Tenancy Revision Application No.5/2008 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2010 (to be read along with Corrigendum dated 6/1/2011) allowed the revision and set aside the Deputy Collector's Judgment and Order dated 24/1/2008. Hence the present Petition, challenging the Tribunal's Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2010.

7. Mr. C.A. Countiho, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Judgment and Order is vitiated by perversity both, on facts as well as law. He submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was cultivating the suit property (lawfully) and such cultivation commenced before Goa was liberated on 19/12/1964. He, therefore, submits that the ingredients of Section 4 of the said Act were fulfilled and the petitioners were the deemed tenants in respect of the suit property. He refers to the provisions of Section 2(23) of the said Act to point out that a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the said Act, is also a tenant in terms of this provision. He submits that since this legal position was glossed over by the Tribunal, the impugned Judgment and Order warrants interference.

8. Mr. Coutinho submits that it was never the case of the respondent that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners entered into the suit property unlawfully or that there was anything unlawful about the cultivation since before the liberation of Goa. He submits that even in terms of Article 124 of Devasthan Regulation, the respondent leases its properties by public auction. Therefore, the suit property was leased to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and cultivation by the predecessor-in-title, followed by the petitioners themselves, was lawful cultivation, to say the least. He submits that the findings to the contrary recorded by the Tribunal are totally perverse and warrants interference. 9. Mr. Coutinho submits that the Tribunal, with respect, has gone at