Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Article 324 of the Code of Communidade (Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.61) states that it is permissible to communidades to give on permanent lease uncultivated land which is not being used and even that cultivated under pulses when they are applied for cultivation of paddy, fruit trees or for building of houses. As per Article 325, no leases can be given of firstly land of common usage; secondly land indispensable for cattle grazing; thirdly land used as access of neighbours; fourthly land used for stocking of harvest and other works necessary for cultivation and protection of fields; fifthly destined for water reservoirs for irrigation of fields or for breeding of fish and so on. As per Article 329, the petitions for lease will be directed to the Governor General and will be presented in the respective Administration of Comunidades. Chapter IX, Section II of the Code of Comunidades deals with the encroachment found out by or without complaint and on application made, there is a provision for regularisation of the encroachment by payment of market value prevailing at the time of encroachment, plus 25 % more of such value. There is a register of encroachment that is required to be maintained by the Comunidade. Thus, the rights for grant of leases as well as seeking regularisation of encroachment on the Comunidade land for cultivation are originating and governed by the provisions of the Code of Comunidades. The defendants succeeded the original grantee i.e. Egidio the father of defendant No. 1.

(b) The issue of limitation under the Act framed by the Parliament and in which limitation period was not set out, will be covered by the Limitation Act, 1963 even in the State of Goa; and
(c) The Portuguese Civil Code provides both for accrual of rights and its enforceability and either it applies in its entirety or does not and there is no half way about it.

The decision in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) lays down the law for the purpose of the Indian Contract Act, Negotiable Instruments Act and the Sale of Goods Act and other statutes framed by the Parliament on the issue of limitation governed by the Limitation Act even in the State of Goa and not by the Portuguese Civil Code. However, the legal position that the issue of limitation set out in the special Act shall be governed by such special statute has not been disturbed. If the dispute arises in respect of a property of share/management of such property which has devolved under the said special statute, the limitation in such dispute would be governed by the provisions in such statute, if available. As said earlier, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Comunidade, the administration of which is governed by the Code of Comunidades, the original grant was made to the father of the defendant No. 1 under the Code of Comunidades, the application submitted by defendant No. 1 for regularisation of the alleged encroachment in 1967 as well as 1973 was also made under the Code of Comunidades and these applications were processed under the said Code. The applications were turned down by following the procedure under the Code. The submissions of Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendants that the limitation of 12 years from 1-1-1964 i.e. from the date of Limitation Act, 1963 came into operation, was applicable to the instant case, cannot be accepted. The issue of limitation in the instant case will have to be considered on the basis of Articles 535, 552 and 559 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The relevant Provisions of the said Articles, read as under :

"Heard learned advocates Shri U. Naik, Gopal Mhambre and A.P. Furtado on the point whether a plan of the Comunidade can be produced in evidence through PW. 2 Rui Rebello de Santana. In my opinion, the suit is for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Plaintiff's engineer PW. 2 produces Comunidade plan given to him to tally the site at the loco to prove title over land in suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Comunidade plan was admissible under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. As such, objections raised as above stands overruled. Further examination in chief to continue."

17. The documents at Exhibits P-3, and P-4 do show that an area admeasuring 26,370 sq. metres was granted to late Egidio and the deceased had encroached upon neighbouring area admeasuring 1,44,342 sq. metres. For the first time, the encroachment was sought to be regularized by application of August 1967, and followed by another application in October, 1973. Both these applications came to be rejected. Defendant No. 1, in both these applications has clearly admitted the encroachment having been made on the suit land. These documents are maintained in the normal course and as per the registers maintained under the Code of Comunidades. They have been duly proved by the evidence of PW. 1 to be the extracts from the register maintained by the Comunidade. These documents also show that as per the provisions for regularisation, as set out in the Code of Comunidades, defendant No. 1 had tried for regularisation, but the same was rejected in 1975. Defendant No. 1 was, thus, an encroacher when he submitted the first application itself. The theory of ownership by adverse possession has been rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the same is not available to the defendants, unless they had challenged the said finding and the challenge was upheld. This issue has attained its finality.