(1.) The issues involved in these two petitions are common and hence the same are taken up together for the final hearing. The Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1/2008 is on the basis of a newspaper report. The newspaper report was published in daily 'Herald'. The newspaper report was regarding the alleged illegal sale of the land held by Communidade of Pilerne (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Communidade') to builders after entering into compromise with builders. The Writ Petition No. 294/2008 is filed in public interest challenging the alienation made by the said Communidade. The contention in short is that in breach of mandatory provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') large tracts of land held by the said Communidade have been sold to builders after entering into settlement with the alleged tenants. It is alleged that Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Use Act') which prevents the use of agricultural land vesting in a tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act for any other purpose than the agriculture has been completely defeated.
(2.) With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. The lands surveyed under Survey No. 211/1 admeasuring 95925 square meters and the land bearing Survey No. 212/1 admeasuring 104825 square meters were held by the said Communidade. In the revenue record (Form No. I and XIV), the name of one Krishna Bhalchandra Hadfadkar (hereinafter referred to as "the said Hadfalkar") appears as a tenant in respect of both the lands. The 7 to 17 respondents are the legal representatives of the said Hadfadkar. The said Hadfadkar was declared as a deemed purchaser under provisions of Section 18A of the Tenancy Act in respect of both the lands. Notice under Section 18C of the Tenancy Act dated 5th February, 1993 was issued by the Mamlatdar and was published in Government Gazette dated 4th March, 1993. On 7th March, 1993, the Mamlatdar passed an order fixing the purchase price. On 30th August, 1993, the Mamlatdar issued a purchase certificate to the said Hadfadkar in respect of both the lands. The Mamlatdar issued a notice under Rule 34 of Agricultural Tenancy Act (Revenue Survey and Record of Rights) Rules, 1967 giving notice of mutation to be made in favour of the said Hadfadkar in the record of rights. The said Communidade (the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 294/2008) submitted objections. At the time of hearing before the Mamlatdar, it was contended by the Communidade that the order of purchase has been obtained by the said Hadfadkar by playing fraud and there was no declaration of tenancy made under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act. However, the Mamlatdar passed an order on 17th October, 1997 and allowed the mutation. The Communidade preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector for challenging the order of Mamlatdar. Another appeal was preferred by the Communidade in the year 1998 for challenging the purchase certificate dated 30th August, 1993 issued by the Mamlatdar in favour of the said Hadfadkar. In both the appeals, it appears that the stay of the impugned order was granted by the Deputy Collector.
(3.) On 30th March, 1998, the said Communidade filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa for declaration that the Survey Authorities under the Land Revenue Code have wrongly recorded the name of the first defendant therein (the said Hadfadkar) as a tenant. A prayer for perpetual injunction was made in the said suit. The said Hadfadkar filed the written statement in the said suit contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act in as much as the issue of tenancy can be decided only by the Mamlatdar. The said Hadfadkar contended that he was a tenant in possession. He contended that a Notice under Section 18C of the Tenancy Act was issued. He contended that the Survey was promulgated in the village in the year 1972 and accordingly, his name was recorded in the tenant's column of the Survey Record in respect of both the lands. It was contended that no action was taken by the said Communidade till 1997 from the year 1972. It must be stated here that one Mr.Jose Nazareth(hereinafter referred to as "the said Nazareth") was also claiming tenancy rights in respect of the lands in question. He was impleaded as a party defendant to the said suit.