The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Administrative Tribunal to refuse to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by an agricultural association of villagers of Goa while also observing that Article 30 (4) (g) of the Code of Comunidades doesn’t confer an unfettered power on the Communidade to enter into a compromise, without the Tribunal’s sanction.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a ‘Communidade’ or an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common, and the income derived from these properties accrues in favor of its members. The Appellants were challenging the judgment by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants stood dismissed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “As regards the submission of the learned counsel relating to Art. 30 (4) (g) of the Code, it is to be noted that the said provision merely empowers a Communidade to deliberate upon terms of compromise, which upon finalisation, has to be forwarded to the Administrative Tribunal. By no stretch of imagination can this provision be construed to mean that it confers an unfettered power on the Communidade to enter into a compromise, without the Tribunal’s sanction.”

Advocate Ninad Laud represented the Appellants while Advocate Abhay Anil Anturkar represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

Two properties (Suit Properties) belonging to the appellant were leased to the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents by the appellant in July 1978. A civil suit was filed by the predecessor of the private respondents, which was decreed & consequently, the name of the predecessor was entered as the tenant of the two properties. When the predecessor passed away, the private respondents filed a Tenancy Application before the Trial Court for a declaration of Tenancy under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act, 1964. The Trial Court allowed the Tenancy Application, consequently declaring the private respondents as agricultural tenants of the Suit Properties.

Aggrieved by the declaration of tenancy, the appellant preferred a Tenancy Appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of this Appeal, the Communidade resolved that the land in dispute could be bifurcated into a 60:40 sharing ratio, with 60% of the land being allotted to the private respondents and 40% of the land to be retained by the communidade. The Administrative Tribunal, Goa, refused to grant permission to the Appellant to compromise proceedings instituted by the private respondents under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The High Court upheld this order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, said “...we are of the considered opinion that the Administrative Tribunal has rightly refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by the appellant. A bare perusal of the same indicates that it is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the statutory framework laid down in Tenancy Act and also violates the Land Use Act.”

The Bench noted that these terms effectively wipe out tenancy rights of the private respondents, which were declared by the Trial Court, and by the proposed compromise, the parties agreed that in lieu of the 60:40 bifurcation of land between them, the judgment would stand set aside. “This prompted the Tribunal to observe that instead of testing the correctness of judgment dated 01.09.2017 on merits before the appellate court, the parties intend to set aside the judgment by way of compromise”, it said.

Referring to the various provisions of the Tenancy Act, the Bench said, “A bare reading of the aforementioned provisions is enough to come to the conclusion that the proposed consent terms or the compromise sought to be entered by the appellant with the private respondents falls foul of both the statutes i.e., the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, insofar as it creates freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant and secondly, for the reason that these terms effectively allow the appellant, as well as the private respondents, to use an agricultural land for non agricultural purposes.”

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench upheld the order of the High Court.

Cause Title: Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 835)

Appearance

Appellants: Advocates Ninad Laud, Guruprasad Naik, AOR Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon

Respondents: Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Sarthak Mehrotra, AOR Surbhi Kapoor, Advocates Subhi Pastor, Bhagwant Deshpande

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.