SUKDO LADKO NAIK Vs. NAVSO BOMBDO GAWDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 under Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, hereinafter called as "the said Act" seeking declaration of tenancy rights under the said Act on the ground that at the relevant time, the authorities acting under the said Act had no jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner "was" a tenant. It is the contention of the petitioner that considering the fact that the respondent No. 1 had been claiming to be a tenant since forty years prior to the filing of the application and that the persons who were tenants prior to the appointed day had ceased to be the tenants consequent to they being declared as the deemed purchasers under Vth Amendment to the said Act, the judgments of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in respect of declaration of tenancy rights of the respondent No. 1 are illegal and bad in law.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 filed an application on 8th July, 1985 before the respondent No. 3 claiming to be the tenant for a period of forty years in respect of the suit property bearing Survey No. 112/1 of village of Honda, and complaining that the name of the husband/father/father-in-law of the petitioners, hereinafter called as the original petitioner was wrongly entered into the tenants column in the record of rights in respect of the suit property and, that, therefore, prayed that the respondent No. 1 be declared as the tenant of the suit property and the name of the original petitioner be ordered to be deleted and the name of the respondent No. 1 be ordered to be inserted in the column relating to tenancy rights in the record of rights. The application was contested by the original petitioner denying the claim of tenancy by the respondent No. 1 and contending that the original petitioner was the tenant in respect of the suit paddy field for the last more than forty years and that his name was correctly entered in the record of rights. They also sought to claim the benefit of presumptive value of the entry in favour of the original petitioner in terms of section 105 of the Land Revenue Code.

(3.) THE respondent No. 3 by its order dated 22nd July, 1988 allowed the said application and declared the respondent No. 1 to be deemed tenant of the suit property and further ordered deletion of the name of the original petitioner from the tenants column in the record of rights. The appeal preferred by the original petitioner before the respondent No. 4 was dismissed by order dated 20th April, 1990. The Tenancy Revision Application No. 11/90 before the Administrative Tribunal was also dismissed by order dated 31st January, 1992.