The Supreme Court on Monday retained an order of the Bombay High Court in Goa, which refused to allow the final terms of the finally given consent of the villagers with the tenants, given that the proposed terms are an attempt to shift the statutory structure set in the 1964 (1964).
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by ‘Komunid’ – an agricultural association of villagers, generally assets – about Tivim’s Tivim’s Tivim about a tactic controversy over two properties in Tivim village. The properties were leased to tenants by Comuned in 1978.
A civil suit was filed by the predecessors of private respondents to enter their names as survey numbers for two properties. The suit was decided in 1986 and the nest of the respondents was named as the tenants of the properties. After the demise of the preceding, private respondents filed a tenancy application before a trial court.
In 2017, the trial court allowed private respondents to apply for a rental application, declaring properties as agricultural tenants. The suffering from the declaration of tenancy, Komunided filed an appeal before the appellate court, which is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, Komuniddered took a pledge that the land should be bifted in the dispute, in which 60 percent of the land is being allocated to the tenants and 40 percent of the land is to be maintained by the comunted. The Administrative Tribunal refused to allow Comunide to file the terms of consent in 2023 under Article 154 (3) of the Communids Code. Communized then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision last year.
The Supreme Court admitted that the Administrative Tribunal has refused to finally allow the finally consent conditions by Comunided.
In the verdict, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, “… the agreement demanded to be filed by the appellant with private respondents, ie as the Terms Act and Land Use Act, the agreement demanded for the proposed consent or agreement is demanded as a freehold owner rights for the tenant, the other, due to the other, this condition is the condition that the conditions are effective, because it is a freehold ownership rights for the tenant. Permission to use agricultural land for non -agricultural purposes to private respondents.
The court stated that the agreement not only crosses the procedural aspects of the Tribal Act, but also allows parties to use suit qualities for a purpose that is clearly forbidden by the Land Use Act.
The story continues below this advertisement
“There is nothing but misuse of the procedure of the agreement sought by the parties. There is a trick to defeat the provisions of the so -called compromise or compromise law and hence it has been correctly denied legal purity, which is not allowed to fulfill the conditions of the proposed consent, not only to meet the tenant, without the permission of any statutory authority, the right to separate the land,” the court said.
“It is clearly clear that through the proposed agreement, the parties have compulsorily abolished the tenancy, without the mode specified in Section 9 of the (Tribal) Act, without the mode,” the court said.
(Tagstotransite) Supreme Court
