22002244::BBHHCC--GGOOAA::11226644 Vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2024 Cummunidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez-Goa. Through its Attorney, Mr. James D’Souza, Son of Shri. Joseph D’Souza, Aged about 44 years, Indian National and R/at H. No. 520, Compremwado, Tivim, Bardez, Goa-

403502. …. Petitioner.

Versus

1 State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

2 Administrator of Communidades North Zone, Having office at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

3 Mr. Bicu Narayan Vaigankar, Aged 68 years, bachelor, agriculturist, 4 Mr. Vithal Narayan Vaigankar, Aged 56 years, married, agriculturist, 5 Mrs. Anita Vithal Vaigankar, Aged 53 years, married, housewife, All r/o H. No. 4, Galvan, Damedem, Tivim, Bardez, Goa.

6 Mrs. Laxmi Narayan Malji, Aged

59 years, married, housewife.

7 Mr. Narayan Rajaram Malji, Aged 67 years, married, businessman, Both resident of H. No. 6/2, Galvan, Damedem, Tivim, Bardez, Goa.

8 Mrs. Manisha Manohar Surlekar, Aged 61 years, married, housewife, 9 Mr. Manohar Vithal Surlekar, Aged 61 years, married, Both resident of H. No. 190/S-4, Central Horta, Talaulim, Navelim, Salcete, Goa.

10 Mrs. Pramila Satish Kauthankar, Aged 45 years, married, housewife, 11 Mr. Satish Digambar Kauthankar, Aged 48 years, married, Both resident of H. No. 1176, Volconem, Tivim, Bardez, Goa.

All represented by their Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Bicu Narayan Vaigankar, the Respondent No. (3) hereinabove, Major, bachelor, Resident of Galwan, Thivim, Bardez, Goa. …Respondents.

Mr. S. S.Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr D. Gaonkar, Ms S.

Dessai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr S. P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr A. R. Kantak, Advocate for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Mr A. D. Bhobe and Ms S. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent nos.

6, 8, 10 and 11.

_______________________

CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J Reserved on : 11^th July 2024 Pronounced on: 6^th August, 2024

JUDGMENT

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 m