LexCOMMUNIDADE OF TIVIM, TIVIM, BARDEZ GOA versus STATE OF GOA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 497 : 2025 INSC 835 Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9470 of 2025) 14 July 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] 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. Headnotes† 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, * Author 498 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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] List of Acts Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964; Code of Comunidades; Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. List of Keywords Compromise proceedings; Tenancy rights; Consent terms; Bifurcation of land; Freehold ownership; Land use; Agricultural land; Non-agricultural; Abuse of the process of law. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9470 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in WP No. 194 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ninad Laud, Deepak Gaonkar, Rohan Sharma, Guruprasad Naik, Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon. Advs. for the Respondents: Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Sarthak Mehrotra, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Bhagwant Deshpande, Ms. Subhi Pastor. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Delay of 146 days in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned. Leave granted. [2025] 7 S.C.R. 499 Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa & Ors. 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 ‘communidades’ during the Portuguese colonisation of Goa. 3. Under challenge before us in this Appeal is the judgment dated 06.08.2024 by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, stood dismissed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa. 4. The High Court while doing so has upheld the or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.