IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the presumption of tenancy based on survey records must be critically evaluated against all available evidence, and that superficial analysis can lead to manifest injustice in tenancy disputes.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Shivan Desai with Mr A. Sardessai and Ms T. Menezes for the petitioners. Mr S.S. Kantak learned Senior Advocate, appears with Mr Parikshit Sawant, Mr Preetam Talaulikar, Mr Simoes Kher, Ms Neha Kholkar and Ms Saicha Desai for respondent nos.1(a) to 1(i).

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1(a) to 1(i) waive service.

3. This petition was dismissed by the coordinate Bench (Coram: C.V. Bhadang, J.) vide judgment and order dtd. 24/8/2016. However, the petitioners instituted Civil Application (Review) No.30/2016 and the same was allowed by order dtd. 26/11/2019 (Coram: C.V. Bhadang, J.). Consequently, this Writ Petition was restored and directed to be placed for admission. After the matter was posted for admission, orders were made to list the matter for final disposal at the admission stage.

4. Accordingly, this petition was heard finally on 5/10/2023 and 6/10/2023 with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. There was some talk of settlement between the parties, but eventually, it was reported that no settlement was possible and, therefore, the matter could be disposed of.

5. This petition challenges the judgment and order dtd. 30/12/2010 made by the Mamlatdar of Sanguem in case no.MAM/TNC/DECL/8/99 and judgment and order dtd. 13/4/2016 made by Ad hoc District Judge, FTC-II, South Goa, Margao, declaring the respondents as agricultural tenants of the suit property known as "Titapemol" surveyed under no.18/1 at Corranguinim, Sanguem, Goa. The suit property admeasures around 4, 51, 775 sq. metres or 45 hectares.

6. The original respondent, Shankar Gopal Bhandari, applied under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (said Act) for a declaration that he was the tenant of the suit property, of which the landlords were Pundalik Sanvordekar and Dr Upendra Sanvordekar. The petitioners are now the legal representatives of the late Pundalik Sanvordekar, and the respondents are the legal representatives of Shankar Bhandari.

7. Shankar Bhandari had pleaded that he was inducted as the tenant of the suit property about fifty years before the institution of the tenancy case and that he would pay rent to the landlords "in kind" depending upon the yield. Shankar Bhandari also claimed that twenty years before filing the tenancy application, rent was paid in cash at the rate of Rs.200.00 per year. However, it was further pleaded that the landlords issued no rent receipts.

8. The records bear out, and even otherwise, it was not disputed that an area of about 21, 800 sq. metres or 2.81 hectares on the Western side of the suit property was sold by the Sanvordekars to Shankar Bhandari vide Sale Deed dtd. 4/11/1977 for a sum of Rs.4, 000.00. Therefore, Shankar Bhandari claimed that after excluding this portion of 2.81 hectares, he continued in possession of the remaining area of 45 hectares as a tenant of the Sanvordekars. Shankar Bhandari claimed that he was cultivating the cashew trees in the suit property and extracting cashew juice, for which he had obtained an excise licence in his name. There are pleadings that just before the application seeking declaration was filed, a separate licence was obtained in Shankar Bhandari's son's name for the extraction of cashew juice and its distillation.

9. As noted above, the Mamlatdar, by order dtd. 30/12/2010, allowed the application and declared Shankar Bhandari and, after him, his legal representatives as the tenants of the suit property. The Ad hoc District Judge dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dtd. 13/4/2016 in Tenancy Appeal No.7/2015. Hence, the present petition.

10. Mr Desai submitted that the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar and the Ad hoc District Judge suffer from perversity, inasmuch as crucial documents have not been considered and some of the crucial documents have been misread. For example, he