MADHUMATI ATCHUT PARAS versus RAJARAM V. PARAB & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 29-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 696 
A 
MADHUMATI ATCHUT PARAS 
v. 
RAJARAM V. PARAS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2971 of 2001) 
s 
JANUARY 29, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 -
ss. 4(1) and 7 - Jurisdiction of Mam/atdar u/s. 7 - To grant 
c negative declaration on the question of tenancy - Held: 
Mamlatdar has the authority to grant a negative declaration 
on the question of tenancy- Power uls. 4(1) to grant negative 
declaration does not oust such jurisdiction of Mamlatdar uls. 
7 - s. 7 embraces within its sweep both the facets i.e. positive 
.. 
D as well as negative declaration - Interpretation of statute. 
~ 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
was whether u/s 7 of Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural 
Tenancy Act, 1964, Mamlatdar was vested with the 
E authority to grant a negative declaration to the effect that 
a particular person is/was not a tenant when any such 
dispute is/was referred to him for his decision. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD:1.1 The expression "if any question arises" 
embraces within its sweep both the facets, i.e., positive 
declaration as well as negative declaration. The 
expression "is or was tenant" in Section 7 of Goa, Daman 
and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 would include the 
G positive declaration as well as the negative declaration. 
The expression in Section 7 of the Act as to the 
determination of the fact that whether a person "is or was 
a tenant", would also include the question whether the 
person is not a tenant, and after conducting an enquiry 
H 
696 
MADHUMATI ATCHUT PARAB v. RAJARAM V. PARAB & 697 
ORS. 
the Mamlatdar shall decide the same. Therefore the A 
question, which was raised, is that, if the Mamlatdar after 
conducting an enquiry comes to the conclusion that the 
concerned person is/was not a tenant, he is bound to 
mention the same. Therefore, it does also amount to a 
declaration to the effect that the person is not a tenant. 
B 
[Paras 6 and 5] [701-G-H; 700-F-H; 701-A-B] 
Nivrutti Laxman Kondobahiri vs. 
Shiv Dayal 
Laxminarayan Sarda and Ors. AIR 1960 Bombay 56 and 
Trimbak Sopan vs. Ganga Ram Mhatarba AIR 1953 Bombay C 
241, referred to. 
1.2. The jurisdiction u/s. 7 is not confined to cases 
where the relationship of the landlord and tenant is 
admitted. In fact, it is only where the said relationship is 
alleged by one party and denied by the other that the D 
question falls to be considered and the decision of the 
question is left exclusively to be determined by the 
Mamlatdar under the provision of the Act. [Para 13] (709-
E-F] 
2.1. When the legislature has provided that the 
E 
landlord can seek a negative declaration in respect of the 
category of person mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Act, 
it cannot conclusively lead to the conclusion that in other 
cases, namely, where the question arises as to whether 
a person is or is not a tenant, the Mamlatdar is not F 
conferred with any power to grant negative declaration 
that the concerned person is not a tenant in respect of 
the disputed property. Considering Section 7 and the 
objects and reasons of the Act and considering the fact 
that for a limited purpose the Mamlatdar is conferred with G 
such power to declare the negative declaration in respect 
of the certain category of persons under Section 4(1) of 
the Act, it cannot be said that while deciding the question 
under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction 
of the Mamlatdar to declare that the concerned person 
H 
' 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A is or was not a tenant, is ousted. [Paras 12 and 13] [708-
H; 709-A-C] 
2.2. The scope of Section 7 is quite different from that 
of Section 4. Section 4 is to operate from within a limited 
B period of one year from the date of enforcement of the 
Act, i.e., 8th of February, 1965, while section 7 is operative 
for all time. [Para 14] [710-E-F] 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
AIR 1960 Bombay 56 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
AIR 1953 Bombay 241 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2971 of 2001. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2000 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Panaji in Letters Patent 
~ 
Appeal No. 9 of 2000. 
Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhan Jha and T.S. Subasish (for Ml 
E 
s K.L. Mehta and Co.) for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.1. This appeal is directed 
against the judgment and order dated 26th of J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.