IMPORTANT POINT
The Mamlatdar has a statutory duty to act against misappropriation of funds by a Managing Committee of a Tenant Association and is empowered to recover such amounts as arrears of land revenue.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE,J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties with consent for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is a Tenant Association duly registered under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act,1964 and Rules thereunder. The petitioner is basically challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji Goa on 06/03/2023 in case No.MAM/ TIS/AK-II/HC/TEN-ASSO/2021/3454.

3. By this order the learned Mamlatdar /respondent No.2 herein, after conducting enquiry into the complaint dtd. 22/07/2021 and notice dtd. 11/08/2021, observed that the earlier Managing Committee of the petitioner abused its powers and misappropriated the funds of the petitioner, failed to maintain the accounts property thereby resulting loss to the tenants association and also did acts which are harmful to the agricultural lands, only directed the petitioner to lodge/register FIR against the erstwhile Managing Committee however failed to exercise its powers for the purpose of recovery of misappropriated amount, which, according to the audited report is Rs.69,55,500.00.

4. A basic challenge is against the impugned order on the ground that the Mamlatdar himself ought to have registered the FIR and initiated the proceedings for recovery of misappropriated amount from the earlier Managing Committee.

5. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. A. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G. Shetye, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

6. Mr Naik would submit that at each stage the petitioner has to approach this Court since Mamlatdar failed to exercise his powers for taking appropriate recourse against the misappropriation and illegalities committed by the earlier committee. It is his contention that under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Discharge of Joint Responsibility of Tenants) Rules, 1975, hereinafter called as "Rules,1975", the Mamlatdar is having wide powers to take appropriate recourse against the Managing Committee if it is pointed out to the Mamlatdar that irregularities have been committed. He submits that the petitioner approached this Court on a couple of occasions for redressal of their grievances only because there was total inaction on the part of respondent No.2/Mamlatdar.

7. Mr Naik while elaborating his submissions would submit that the petitioner association is registered before respondent No.2/Mamlatdar under Rules 1975. The Managing Committee of the petitioner's association is elected by the Mamlatdar from amongst the tenants/farmers of the associations. Such a Managing Committee has to perform the work as entrusted under the said Rules. On failure of the Managing Committee to perform its duties, action is contemplated at the hands of the Mamalatdar against such a Managing Committee and even the committee could be dissolved. He would submit that from time to time the Managing Committee was formed and the last committee which was elected in the year 2016 for a period of three years. The said Managing Committee consist of respondent Nos.3 to 7 which was elected on 01/06/2016 up to 31/05/2019.

8. Mr Naik would then submit that after expiry of the term i.e. on 31/05/2019 or thereafter, no elections were held by the Mamlatdar/ respondent No.2 and the earlier Managing Committee consisting of respondent Nos.3 to 7 continued to manage the business illegally till the year 2021. During this period of three years, respondent Nos.3 to 7 committed several irregularities, illegalities and even misappropriated funds of the petitioner association. They failed to even intimate respondent No.2 about the expiry of their term, and the list of voters so as to conduct fresh elections. Several complaints were lodged by the petitioner and their members with respondent No.2 against the earlier Managing Committee consisting of re