IMPORTANT POINT
Compromises regarding tenancy rights must comply with the Agricultural Tenancy Act's provisions, ensuring tenant protections are not circumvented.

JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

1. Heard Mr S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr D. Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr A.R. Kantak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, Mr A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 8, 10 and 11 and Mr S.P. Munj, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent.

3. Petitioner/Comunidade of Tivim being aggrieved by order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 13.4.2023, preferred the present petition.

4. By the impugned order, learned Administrative Tribunal refused to grant permission to Comunidade and private respondents to compromise proceedings filed under Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964.

5. Mr Kantak would submit that resolution was passed by the petitioner’s General Body meeting that matter pending between Comunidade and the respondents need to be disposed of by filing consent terms. However, since Code of Comunidades and more particularly Article 154(3) requires permission of the Administrative Tribunal, an application was filed for grant of permission to compromise proceedings. Respondents also agreed to decide the said proceedings by filing consent terms. However, learned Administrative Tribunal rejected such prayer by misdirecting itself and failing to consider the best interest of the Comunidade.

6. Mr Kantak disclosed that terms of compromise clearly goes to show that it will be benefiting the Comunidade as it will retain 40% of the land for its own use whereas the remaining 60% will be considered as the land belonging to the respondents.

7. Mr Kantak would further submit that even the Administrator of Comunidade agreed for such compromise terms and recommended that the matter could be compromised.

8. Mr Kantak would further submit that respondents filed proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Agricultural Tenancy Act wherein exparte order was passed thereby declaring the respondents as tenants of the property mentioned therein. Comunidade then decided to challenge such order and accordingly, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court. However, General Body of the Comunidade discussed the issue and opined that for the best interest of the Comunidade to file consent terms thereby agreeing to give up to 60% land and to retain 40% with it. Such a proposal of the Comunidade was then put before the respondents who immediately agreed and accordingly the matter was referred to the Administrator. The Administrator of Comunidade by giving his consent, referred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal for grant of permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades.

9. Mr Kantak would submit that terms discussed and agreed between the parties would clearly suggest that Comunidade will be benefited if such consent terms are agreed and permitted or otherwise entire land will be considered as tenanted land and will have to be allotted to the respondents.

10. Mr Kantak while arguing the matter, would submit that decision of the Administrative Tribunal ought to have been exercised looking to the best interest of the Comunidade as agreed terms would clearly go to show that Comunidade is going to retain 40% of the land in question. He submits that the learned Administrative Tribunal failed to consider this aspect only on the ground that terms disclose exclusive free right from any tenancy claim, being against the provisions of the tenancy Act. He submits that unless rights are given to the parties, the question of making it as a free hold land would be difficult.

11. Mr A.R. Kantak and Mr A.D. Bhobe appearing for the private respondents supported the contentions of Mr Kantak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

12. Mr Munj, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State while opposing such prayer and supporting the contentions and observations in the impugned order would submit that procedu