Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa vs State of Goa & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

14 July 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 9470 of 2025

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran

Citation

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 497 : 2025 INSC 835

Acts & Sections

Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy… Code of Comunidades Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991

Issue for consideration

Whether the Administrative Tribunal was correct in its refusal to grant the appellant, permission to compromise proceedings with the private respondents in terms of Article 154 (3) of the Code of Comunidades.

Headnote

Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 – Code of Comunidades – Art.154(3) – Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 – By the order dated 13.04.2023, the Administrative Tribunal, Goa refused to grant permission to the appellant to compromise proceedings instituted by the private respondents herein (respondent nos. 3 to 11) – Writ Petition filed by the appellant, stood dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 – Whether interference is required with the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the High Court:

Held: There is no reason to interfere with the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the High Court – This Court is in complete agreement with the Administrative Tribunal, Goa which has refused to accord its permission to the filing of the consent terms – What weighed in with the Tribunal is the fact that these terms effectively wipe out tenancy rights of the private respondents which was declared by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2017 and by the proposed compromise, the parties have agreed that in lieu of the 60:40 bifurcation of land between them, the judgment dated 01.09.2017 stands set aside – This prompted the Tribunal to observe that instead of testing the correctness of judgment dated 01.09.2017 on merits before the appellate court, the parties intend to set aside the judgment by way of compromise – The proposed consent terms or the compromise sought to be entered by the appellant with the private respondents falls foul of both the statutes i.e., the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, insofar as it creates freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant and secondly, for the reason that these terms effectively allow the appellant, as well as the private respondents, to use an agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes – The compromise sought by the parties is nothing but an abuse of the process of law – The so called compromise or agreement is a ploy to defeat the provisions of law and therefore it has been rightly denied the legal sanctity which was sought. [Paras 14, 19]

Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Delay of 146 days in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this court is a ‘Communidade’1 or an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common and the income derived from these properties accrues in favour of its members. The system is peculiar to Goa and is based on the concept of collective village ownership, which was originally called as the ‘Gaunkari System’ and the village communities owning the land collectively were known as ‘gaunkaria’ which ultimately came to be termed as ‘communi

View Subscription Plans →