Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The point for consideration which arises in the present petition is whether a Mamlatdar acting under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the said Act) is empowered to entertain an application for negative declaration to the effect that the opponent is not a tenant under the said Act.

2. The facts in brief relevant for decision are that the respondents No. 4 and 5 herein filed an application against the petitioners seeking a declaration that the petitioners who are the opponents in the said application were not the tenants in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 242 situated at Sancoale, Mormugao prior to the commencement of the enforcement of the Fifth Amendment to the said Act and even subsequent thereto. The application was filed in March, 1992. The petitioners herein while contesting the proceedings raised a preliminary point of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar, to issue such a negative declaration. The Mamlatdar the respondent No. 3 while rejecting the preliminary objection by its. Order dated 5th April, 1994, held that in view of the Fifth Amendment to the said Act, the Court of Mamlatdar is entitled to decide that a particular person was or was not a tenant and that the positive declaration implies negative one and as such, the enquiry could proceed under section 7 of the said Act. The appeal preferred against the same was allowed by the Deputy Collector by his Order dated 17th April, 1995, and the Order of the Mamlatdar was set aside. The respondents herein preferred revision against the said Order before the Administrative Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by its Order dated 7th July, 1997 upholding the Order of the Mamlatdar. It was held by the Tribunal that the landlord's application for negative declaration was maintainable before the Mamlatdar.

4. Shri M.S. Sonak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned Order submitted that the provisions contained in the said Act do not empower the Mamlatdar to issue negative declaration sought for by the respondents No. 4 to 6 and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the Order passed by the Deputy Collector. He further submitted that the Tribunal was bound by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 306 of 1996 dated 10th October, 1996 which was brought to the notice of the tribunal and which was directly on the point in issue and in relation to the provisions contained in the said Act and, therefore, by not following the same, the Tribunal acted illegally and in improper exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Drawing my attention to the fact of filing of the Civil Suit No. 19 of 1997 by the respondents No. 4 to 6 in the Civil Court, Vasco for similar declaration, the learned Advocate submitted that even the respondents themselves have correctly understood the provisions contained in the said Act and, therefore, there was no occasion for permitting the respondents to continue simultaneously with the proceedings for the same relief before the Mamaltdar. He further submitted that the jurisdiction to entertain a matter depends on the pleadings in the plaint or the application and being so, once the respondents approached the Mamlatdar complaining that the petitioners were trespassers in the property, considering the provisions contained in the said Act, the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction under the said Act to entertain such an application. He placed reliance upon unreported Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Smt. Sitabai Ramchandra Vaze and others v. Administrative Tribunal and others, in Writ Petition No. 306 of 1996.

5. On the other hand, Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar to entertain an application to grant negative declaration has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court and the same was binding upon the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal having followed the same and having passed the Order in accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, no fault can be found with the Order of the Tribunal. Drawing my attention to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Nivrutti Laxman Kondobahiri v. Shivdayal Laxminarayan Sarda and others), reported in A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 56 and in Rajaram Totaram Patel v. Mahipat Mahadu Patel and others in , the learned Advocate submitted that the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar is not restricted to the issuance of positive declaration. The issue as to whether a person is a tenant would include whether such a person is not a tenant and in that context placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the learned Advocate submitted that no fault can be found with the Order of the Mamlatdar rejecting the preliminary objection sought to be raised by the petitioners and duly confirmed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that by crafty pleadings, parties cannot choose to decide about the forum where parties should get relief in the matter. In any case, the learned Advocate submitted that the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court is binding upon a Single Judge and therefore, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. C.L. Agrawal and another, in case any contradictory view is to be taken, then the matter will again have to be referred to another Full Bench for its decision. He further drew my attention to the fact that the decision of the Full Bench cited by him was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Sitabai Ramchandra Vaze (supra).

19. The issue of tenancy is not absolutely new creation under the statute of the said Act. The tenancy is always created by virtue of an agreement between the parties. What is sought to be done under the provisions of the said Act is that the persons holding lease of the agricultural properties are accorded certain protection and when such rights are sought to be disputed they are made entitled to seek a declaration of their right under the said Act from the Mamlatdar. While doing so, the declaration is sought to be limited to the extent of the existence of relationship of tenancy i.e. landlord and tenant. It does not speak about the absence of such relationship. Undoubtedly, such an issue can certainly be tried before a Civil Court and Civil Court is empowered to decide such issue. Section 58 of the said Act bars Civil Courts from entertaining the matters where any issue is required to be decided by the Mamlatdar under the said Act. As has been seen above and has been held by the Single Judge in the matter of Smt. Sitabai Ramchandra Vaze, the issue under section 7 which can be dealt by Mamlatdar is only relating to the positive declaration regarding the tenancy in the persons claiming such right. Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to give negative declaration in favour of a person disputing the tenancy right of the opponent and accusing the opponent of being a trespasser.