COMMUNIDADE OF CALANGUTE Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition was filed by the petitioner on 29/10/2010. Objections raised by the Registry were cleared by the petitioner on 26/11/2010. On grant of circulation today, petition is listed before us. This petition is filed by the Communidade of Calangute, who is represented by its attorney Mr. Antonio Francisco. Respondent No.1 is the State of Goa. Respondents nos. 2 to 6 are various authorities of the respondent no.1, State of Goa. Respondent No.7 is Village Panchayat of Calangute through its Secretary. Respondents nos.8,9 & 10 are the Collector, North Goa, Deputy Collector and SDO, and the Mamlatdar, Mapusa, Bardez. From serial nos.11 to 22 are private persons in the array of respondents. Respondent no.21 seems to be the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent no.22, the last respondent seems to be deceased person.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner states that Civil Suit No. 1/1976 was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa wherein casual admission of the attorney of Communidade of Calangute, the petitioner was recorded and a declaration was made that respondent no.11, Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar in this Writ Petition was a tenant. This declaration granted was made by the Civil Court, which does not have power and jurisdiction under the provisions of the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. Respondent No.11 filed purchase proceedings bearing No. TNC/SR/2/96 in the year 1996 against the petitioner. The said proceedings were filed before the Mamlatdar under Section 18C of the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (herein after referred to as "the said Act"). The said property was purchased by respondent no.11 under Section 18C of the said Act being tenant of the property and in accordance with provisions of the said Act. This proceeding was on the basis of the declaration made by the tenant in favour of respondent no.11 made by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.1/1976. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that purchase proceedings bearing No.TNC/SR/2/1996, was filed by respondent no.11 before the Mamlatdar seeking permission of the said authority to sell agricultural tenancy property under Section 18K of the said Act. Grievance is that Mamlatdar concerned granted blanket permission in favour of respondent no.11. Copy of the said proceedings is placed on record (page 85 of the compilation). It appears from this copy of the proceedings that it was an application dated 1/03/1996 filed by respondent no.11, Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar, who was applicant therein. Prayer in the application was seeking permission to transfer the land under Section 18K of the said Act. In this order dated 12/04/1996, facts have been recorded by the authority concerned i.e. Mamlatdar of Bardez, Mapusa. In this order, the Mamlatdar has referred to Rule 6 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1977 (if necessary, herein after referred to as "Rules, 1977" for short). The grounds on which such permission of transfer of land was sought by respondent no.11, Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar, have been mentioned in this order at paras (a) to (g). Statement of the applicant is recorded that applicant i.e. respondent no.11, Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar is not enjoying good health and was also mentally disturbed due to continuous deaths in his family and was unable to cultivate land personally as well as none of his family members were able to cultivate the said lands. The mamlatdar has accepted one of the grounds viz. the ground at (g) of respondent no.11, Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar, who was applicant therein which reads as follows:

(3.) WE make it clear that there is an ambiguity in this page 87 because grounds have been mentioned in para (a) to (g). On this, Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Rodrigues have clarified the position. To avoid ambiguity, we have recorded that clause itself. The appellant has accepted this ground raised by respondent no.11 Mr. Surya Mahadev Vengurlekar and, accordingly, passed order on 12/04/1996. This has been reproduced in the operative part of the order.