Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Right to file negative declaration under Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - The Mamlatdar has the authority to grant a negative declaration that a person is not a tenant, as per Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act. This power includes declaring that a claimant is not a tenant, which is supported by judicial rulings that affirm the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction to issue such declarations ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"], ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"], ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"].
Third-party filing for negative declaration after purchase - A third person cannot directly file for a negative declaration concerning a property they did not purchase or possess, especially after the land has been purchased under the Act. The legal process involves the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction, and such declarations are typically sought by parties claiming tenancy or non-tenancy status. The courts have clarified that negative declarations are granted to establish non-tenancy status and are not generally accessible to third parties without a direct interest ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"], ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"].
Legal proceedings and jurisdiction - The courts have consistently held that the Mamlatdar has the jurisdiction to grant negative declarations under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, and such jurisdiction is exclusive, thus ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. For example, the Supreme Court noted that the Mamlatdar, in the exercise of powers under section 7 of the Tenancy Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"].
Implication of purchase and tenancy rights - When a person purchases a paddy field under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, they acquire certain rights, but this does not automatically preclude third parties from seeking a negative declaration if they claim non-tenancy or non-possession. However, such claims must be made through the proper legal channels before the Mamlatdar, and not directly by third parties post-purchase ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"].
Summary - After purchasing a paddy field under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, a third person generally cannot file for a negative declaration unless they have a direct legal interest or claim to the land, and such declarations are primarily sought by parties asserting tenancy or non-tenancy status through the Mamlatdar. The jurisdiction to grant such declarations lies with the Mamlatdar, and courts have upheld this authority, emphasizing that third-party claims require proper procedural channels ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"], ["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"].
References:["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]["IND_HC_HCGA010007422009"]
Imagine you've just acquired ownership of a lush paddy field in Goa through the deemed purchase provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (the Tenancy Act). Everything seems settled with your purchase certificate in hand. But then, a third party—perhaps a Comunidade or another claimant—steps in, questioning your foundational tenancy status. After purchasing a paddy field under Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, can a third person file for negative declaration?
This is a common concern for landowners, tenants, and interested parties in Goa's agricultural sector. Generally, yes, a third person may file for a negative declaration under Section 7 before the Mamlatdar, even post-purchase. However, there are nuances, jurisdictional limits, and potential hurdles. This post breaks it down, drawing from key legal provisions and precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The Tenancy Act protects tenants' rights while regulating agricultural land, especially paddy fields. Key provisions include:- Section 4: Deemed tenancy for those lawfully cultivating land between July 1, 1962, and February 8, 1965.- Section 18A: Deemed purchase on Tillers' Day (October 8, 1976), vesting land in tenants. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100- Section 18H: Issuance of purchase certificates after price fixation under Sections 18C/D. Goa Housing Board VS Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 982
Post-purchase, the tenant becomes owner, subject to restrictions like Section 18K (no transfer for 10 years) and agricultural use mandates. But foundational questions—like was there tenancy?—remain challengeable. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100
Section 7 empowers the Mamlatdar with exclusive jurisdiction to decide: whether any person is a tenant or was a tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant. This includes negative declarations—declaring someone is not a tenant. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100Madhumati Atchut Parab VS Shri Rajaram v. Parab` - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 139
As affirmed in Madhumati Atchut Parab Vs. Rajaram V. Parab ((2009)4 SCC 183), the Mamlatdar in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100Madhumati Atchut Parab VS Shri Rajaram v. Parab` - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 139
Unlike the proviso to Section 4 (limiting landlord applications to one year from Act commencement), Section 7 operates for all time. Madhumati Atchut Parab VS Shri Rajaram v. Parab` - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 139
Civil courts lack jurisdiction per Section 58: no Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question... required to be settled... by the Mamlatdar. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100 Third parties cannot bypass via civil suits. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100
Yes, generally. Even after deemed purchase under Section 18A and certificate under 18H, third persons (e.g., Comunidades as landlords under Section 55) can approach the Mamlatdar under Section 7. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 461
Tenancy ends upon vesting, but foundational tenancy status can be questioned retrospectively. Comunidades have challenged tenant entries and certificates post-issuance via tenancy revisions, confirming Mamlatdar/Tribunal authority. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100
Revenue records presume tenancy (Rule 48, Rules), but are rebuttable. Failed claims (e.g., no possession proof 1962-65) get rejected post-facto. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar VS Custodian of Evacuee Property - 2020 2 Supreme 668
No bar to original landlords/tenants. Comunidades objected post-Section 18C gazette notices. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100 Paddy auction allottees cultivating 1962-65 qualify as deemed tenants under Section 4, rebuttable via Section 7. Valentino Cardozo VS Shree Mallikarjun Devasthan of Canacona Shristhal, Canacona, Goa, Represented by its Attorney Rama G. Desai - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 98
In disputes between claimants, both asserting tenancy, Section 7 applies—not just landlord-tenant. As in one case: The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants, both claiming to be tenants of the landlady, was a dispute within the meaning of Section 7. The court directed obtaining a declaration from Mamlatdar. Sanvlo Fatu Dabalo and another VS Shivram Laxman Korgaonkar and another - 1973 Supreme(Goa) 18
While possible, challenges face obstacles:- Res Judicata: If tenancy affirmed in Section 18C proceedings, Section 7 may be barred; use appeals to Collector/Tribunal. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100- Time Limits: Section 7 has no strict bar but requires reasonable time (no fraud/delay specifics). Madhumati Atchut Parab VS Shri Rajaram v. Parab` - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 139- Post-Purchase Effects: Negative declaration voids purchase, triggering Section 18J disposal (not automatic reversion). Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100- Other Restrictions: Land stays agricultural (Section 2); invalid post-purchase surrenders fail. Goa Housing Board VS Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 982
Civil courts sometimes defer: In a paddy field construction dispute, courts remanded for jurisdiction checks, noting transferees may not auto-become landlords. JERRY ALEX BRAGANZA @ JERONIMO ORICULO ALEX BRAGANZA VS RAJESHREE ALIAS RAYESHRI RAMDAS BORKAR @ SHOBHAVATI RAMDAS BORKAR - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 340
Tenant Disputes: Courts interpret Section 7 broadly, covering co-tenant rivalries. E.g., the question of whether a person is a tenant is not limited to a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, but can also include disputes between tenants. Sanvlo Fatu Dabalo and another VS Shivram Laxman Korgaonkar and another - 1973 Supreme(Goa) 18
Post-Purchase Sales: In a co-tenant suit, sales pending litigation don't bind others; one co-owner can't alter joint paddy fields without consent. Presumptions favor common (not joint) tenancy. Sadashiv D. Naik VS Umesh Krishna Sawanth - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1638
Evidence Matters: Possession proof (e.g., leases, receipts) crucial; entries in Forms I/XIV aren't title documents alone. Supreme Court in Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik (1993) 3 SCC 123 emphasized tenancy establishment. Conservator of Forest VS Vinayak M. Fotto - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 2383
Negative Declarations Upheld: Multiple rulings affirm Mamlatdar power for declarations a person is not a tenant. FRANCISCO X. JACQUES vs DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS and ORSSHRI VINCENT FERNANDES,CARANZALEM-GOA vs STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY,PANAJI and ANR
These cases reinforce: Approach Mamlatdar first, not courts.
If challenging:1. File under Section 7 with evidence (no 1962-65 cultivation, no Custodian lease for evacuee land).2. Challenge revenue records or prior objections.3. Appeal to Collector; revise to Tribunal.4. Avoid civil suits—risk dismissal.5. For paddy fields, prove non-personal cultivation (Section 7A) if applicable. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100
Purchasers: Bolster records early; monitor Section 18C notices.
Goa's Tenancy Act balances protection and scrutiny. Stay informed, act promptly. For tailored advice, contact a local expert.
References (select excerpts):1. Madhumati Atchut Parab VS Shri Rajaram v. Parab` - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 139: Section 7 powers, distinctions from Section 4.2. Pilerne Citizens Forum VS State of Goa - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1100: Post-purchase challenges, Madhumati precedent.3. Sanvlo Fatu Dabalo and another VS Shivram Laxman Korgaonkar and another - 1973 Supreme(Goa) 18: Tenant disputes under Section 7.4. Others as cited.
#GoaTenancyAct, #NegativeDeclaration, #AgriculturalTenancy
Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 was also pleaded. ... Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act before the collector of North Goa at Tenancy Act,1964".
Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he
paddy field i.e. ... that the suit property is not a paddy field. ... tenancy? ... declaration.
The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were the tenants of the western part of the suit land since the time the previous landlady sold the land to the present landlady without giving them notice under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, hereinafter called "the Act ... raised by a landlord or a tenant or a co-tenant or any other person and that the question contemplated by Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricult....
By virtue of Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he became the deemed purchaser of the suit paddy field along with other co-tenants. ... being the agricultural tenant on a person. ... Tenancy Act. ... As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant, the provisions of section ....
, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (“The Act” for short). ... Agricultural Tenancy Act as amended by the fifth Amendment Act in deciding the suit Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act are in pari- materia with plaintiffs were entitled to the purchase price of Rs.4000/- Tenancy Act 1964 and have held that the plaintiffs were p sty....
The said Writ Petition was dismissed and the order of Administrative tribunal was maintained on the ground that under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, there was no power vested with the Mamlatdar to grant the negative declaration. ... In respect of survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 of Goa Velha, neither any person was declared as tenant or deemed purchaser nor any purchase certificate was issued to any person, under the Tenancy A....
declaration that a particular person is not a tenant. ... under the Tenancy Act, is concerned. ... Section 2(13) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Tenancy Act, for short) negative declaration. ... Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person#HL_E....
declaration that a particular person is not a tenant. ... under the Tenancy Act, is concerned. ... Section 2(13) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Tenancy Act, for short) negative declaration. ... Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person#HL_E....
By order dated 10.11.77 the third respondent dismissed the application under S.18 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act inter alia holding that the ... Act. ... Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 before the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji which came to be registered as TNC/ 35/77 and the Mamlatdar after ... in respect of the northern portion of the paddy field was upheld by the Mamlatdar in Tenancy#HL_END....
It was contended that the appellants have illegally transferred the suit property in favour of the fifth respondent, where certain construction activities were found to be carried out. It was contended that the same is illegal as the suit field is a paddy filed and the fifth respondent without obtaining permission from the Mamlatdar and the first and the second respondent, who are the deemed purchasers under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Tenancy Act, for short) had trespassed into the suit property and carried out illegal construction. It was in the....
3 filed an application under Section 7 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act for declaring him as a tenant of the suit property along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 8A of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. 3. Thereafter the Mamlatdar was pleased to pass an order of status quo, therefore, the petitioner preferred Tenancy Revision before the Deputy Collector. Mamlatdar was pleased to reject the ad-interim relief sought by the respondent no.
(b) Whether the plaintiff was required to have declaration of tenancy under Goa Agricultural Act and can the entry in Form I and XIV under Land Revenue Code, 1968 be a title document claiming relief of possession?" Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inacio Martins (Deceased through LRS.) v. Narayan Hari Naik and others, reported in (1993) 3 S.C.C. 123.
This would also be a harmonious construction as the jurisdiction of the civil court would not be ousted and there would be no conflicting judgments. When the legislature has provided that the landlord can seek a negative declaration in respect of the category of person mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Goa Tenancy Act, it cannot conclusively lead to the conclusion that in other cases, namely, where the question arises as to whether a person is or is not a tenant, the Mamlatdar is not conferred with any power to grant negative declaration that the concerned person is not a tenant in ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
