COMMUNIDADE OF SANCOALE Vs. ZUARI INDUSTRIES LIMITED COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri H. D. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 110.2011, whereby the suit filed by the Appellant came to be dismissed. It is the case of the Appellant that they owned the suit properties and that by letter dated 10.10.1968, a company by name of Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd., applied to the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman & Diu, for taking up on permanent lease basis or on purchase basis an area of about 500 hectares for locating a fertilizer project. Such request was granted at an extra ordinary meeting on 10.11.1968 which resolved to grant a perpetual lease/Aforamento of the plots of the Appellants having approximately an area of 500 hectares. Such decision was conveyed to the Respondent no. 17 and the Respondent no. 17 recommended that the request of the company should be granted. The file was there submitted to the Governor for approval and by letter dated 07.01.1969, the office of the Collector and DCA informed the Respondent no. 17 that the proposal was accepted. Accordingly, the grant was executed on 01.01969 and on 31.03.1971, a Conveyance Deed was executed between the Appellant and the Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. It is further their case that the Respondent no. 1 executed a Lease Agreement dated 18.10.2000 and 27.09.2001 with the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively and a Deed of Exchange dated 204.1999 with the Respondent nos. 4 to 16. It is further the case of the Appellant that Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Grant dated 01.01969, gives an option of purchasing the land on remission of annual rent for the purpose of acquiring ownership and the transfer affected by the original Grantor was contrary to the conditions agreed upon by the Appellant in the Resolution at its extra ordinary meeting held on 10.11.1968 and that they were not binding on the Appellant. It is further their case that the Appellant could not sell and had never decided to sell its properties in view of an express prohibition to sell its properties and, therefore, the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.03.1971, is non existent and void ab-initio. Alleging that the Respondent no. 1 had no right or authority to sub-let the disputed property or to enter into the Deed of Exchange nor could collect any rent from the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and claiming that it had determined the lease of the Appellant by forfeiture by notice dated 26.11.2001, the Appellants filed the suit, inter alia, claiming that the status with the Respondent no. 1 in respect of the disputed properties up to the date of forfeiture i.e. 27.12001 i.e. till the forfeiture of the lease, is that of a lessee and that the Lease granted in favour of the Respondent no. 1 by Lease Deed dated 01.01969, has been determined by forfeiture and the Lease dated 18.10.2000 and 27.09.2001 between the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent nos. 1 and 3 respectively and the Deed of Exchange between the Respondent no. 1 and the Respondent nos. 4 to 16 are null and void and without any legal effects and not binding on the Appellant. Further relief was sought to quit and vacate the suit properties and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the Appellants.

(3.) Respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 16 filed their written statements raising preliminary objections that the suit is liable to be dismissed as permission as required under Article 9 of the Code of Communidade is not supported. It is further their case that it is open to the Grantor of the land under Article 6 read with Article 238 and 241 of the Code of Communidade, to dispose the land which is actually done by the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.01971 though there is no need for execution of any deed as after redemption of 20 years foro, the grantee becomes absolute owner. It is further their case that the Deed of Conveyance does not militate against the title by grant of Aforamento and the Respondent no. 1 submitted that the Appellant is not entitled for any reliefs.