Writ Petition No. 168 of 2000,and Writ Petition No. 388 of 2004

12th February, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M.S. Sonak
Respondent Counsel: Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni,D. Lawande,Mr. A. Mashelkar

Cases Cited:
Kamat Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Collector & S.D.O. & Ors., 2000(2) Goa L.T. 447 [Para 6,8]
Madhumati Atchut Parab Vs. Rajaram V. Parab & Ors., 2009 ALL SCR 388=2009 (4) SCC 183 [Para 15,22]
Pilerne Citizens Forum Vs. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary & Ors., 2010(5) ALL MR 608=2010 (6) Bom.C.R. 594 [Para 20,21]
Madhumati Atchut Parab Vs. Rajaram V. Parab & Ors., 2009(3) ALL MR 486 (S.C.)=2009 (4) SCC 183 [Para 15,22]

JUDGMENT

U. V. Bakre, J. :- A letter dated 31/08/1999 was received from the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 168/2000. By this letter, the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court the alleged illegalities committed by respondents no. 7 and 8 by purchasing a large number of paddy fields at Goa Velha bearing survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 and by illegally converting them into developed plots for sale. It was alleged that he had complained to the village Panchayat of St. Andre, Collector of North Goa, Directorate of Health Services, Directorate of Panchayats, Block development office and Town and Country Planning Department. It was also alleged that the said activities damaged the paddy fields and caused ecological imbalance inter alia, by the land being filled up with mud, which in turn, obstructed the free flow of water, resulting in floods and losses to the farmers and tenants. The petitioner further alleged that his complaints to the authorities remained unanswered and, in fact, the Town and County Planning Department gave approvals to the agricultural fields/lands for being subdivided to enable the construction of houses.

2. By order dated 14/06/2000, this Court directed that the said letter be treated as "PIL petition". It was noted that a similar type of petition being Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000 had also been considered by this Court and was posted for hearing on 19/06/2000. The respondents no. 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No. 168/2000 are respectively the Directorate of Panchayats, Collector of North Goa, Secretary, Village Panchayat of St. Andre, Directorate of Health Services, Panaji, Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Panaji and Block Development Officer, Panaji. The respondent no.9 is the Town and Country Planning Board. The respondents No. 7, 8 and 10 to 40 are all individuals. The Respondents no. 10 to 40 were impleaded subsequently pursuant to an Order dated 05/06/2007 passed on an application of the learned Amicus Curiae.

3. Mr. Mahesh Sonak, learned Counsel, was requested by the previous Division Bench to appear as Amicus Curiae in this petition. Before proceeding further, we would like to express appreciation to the learned Amicus Curiae for his assistance. Apart from taking us through the record, he has tendered detailed written synopsis and has invited our attention to relevant orders and judgments.

4. An Order dated 26/06/2000 was passed in the Writ Petition No. 168/2000 and in the said connected Writ Petition no. 71 of 2000, reported in 2000(2) Goa L.T. 81. Paragraph 3 of the said order is relevant and it reads as under :

"3. We find from the averments that the acts of change in use of land unless they are bonafide, are a fraud on the Act. Once the Act is in force until the law is amended, no land covered by the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act can be used for any purpose other than agriculture. The issue involved raises important issues for consideration. In the light of that, we are compelled to issue the following directions:-

(1) All the Collectors and Sub-Divisional Officers authorised to grant conversion certificates of land from agricultural to nay other purposes in both the Districts will direct the stay of all constructions wherein as on the date when the Act came into force, i.e. 2nd November, 1990, Form I and XIV index of survey records showed the name of the tenant in the column of tenants.

(2) The Sub-Divisional Officers in the Districts with the assistance of the Mamlatdar of the Taluka will review all such cases of land conversion as and from 2nd November,1990. In preparing the reports, they will call for the reports from the Talathis/Aval Karkuns of the respective areas where such land has been converted. The report to be called amongst other information will be whether before 2nd November, 1990, there were proceedings either by the landlord or tenant before the Authorities under the Tenancy Act. Secondly, the crop production records of such lands. A preliminary report by each of the Sub-Divisional Officers of the District will be submitted to this Court. The reports to be submitted to the Revenue Secretary of the State. The Revenue Secretary of the State to submit the report to this Court on an Affidavit, with further details of further steps that they propose.

(3) The Revenue Secretary of the State of Goa to circulate a copy of this Order to the Collectors and Sub-Divisional Officers, all Municipal Councils/Municipalities, Village Panchayats and Planning Authorities constituted under the Town and Country Planning Act directing them to issue orders to stop all constructions which are going on and/or in respect of which permissions have been given, wherein the survey records as on 2nd November, 1990 showed name of a tenant or tenants or co-tenants, until further orders of this Court"

5. Subsequently, further order dated 10/07/2000 came to be passed by the same Division Bench which noted the Judgment dated 27/06/2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 213 of 1998 in which also several observations were made with respect to the agricultural land and conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land.

6. In the case of "Kamat Construction Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Collector & S.D.O., and others", reported in 2000(2) Goa L.T. 447, by Judgment and Order dated 05/09/2000 it was held that if the Legislature in its wisdom and in the interest of society has passed the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, then it is the duty of the Court to see that the same is enforced. The Division Bench declined to modify the order dated 26/06/2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000 and 168 of 2000. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to represent to the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector was directed to examine, whether there was any tenancy on the date on which the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 came into force, and whether any illegal conversion has taken place.

7. The Town and Country Planning Board filed Misc. Civil Applications no. 406 of 2000 and 407 of 2000 in the Writ Petitions No. 71/2000 and 168/2000 whereas one Mr. Antonio Avelar Barreto filed Misc. Civil Application no. 381 of 2000 in Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000 claiming that though sentiments expressed by the Court in the orders dated 26/06/2000 and 10/07/2000 are understandable, however, the order dated 10/7/2000 when it deals with lands other than tenancies, is a little wider one. It was alleged that there is no specified ban with respect to agricultural land where there are no tenancies. It was further contended that the conversion of agricultural land without tenants has been permitted under the Land Revenue Code. It was therefore prayed that the said Order requires to be modified insofar as it concerns the non-tenanted lands. The Division Bench considered this aspect and by order dated 05/09/2000 held that the order dated 10/7/2000 should be modified. Attention of the Division bench was drawn to the fact that as far as the tenanted lands are concerned, in the order dated 26/6/2000, the Court included a clarification in clause 6 that the order will not cover Government projects in respect of the lands which have been acquired and other instances like village roads where authorities are carrying on the work. The Division Bench was pleased to give following clarifications :

"(a) We direct that similar clarification will be read in the Order of 10th July, 2000 regarding nontenanted agricultural lands.

(b) it is further clarified that as far as the Planning Board is concerned, the Board will be at liberty to proceed with town planning process and drafting of the regional plan. In that process, if it is required to grant permission to any agricultural lands (other than tenancies) to be converted into non-agricultural lands, it will be open to the Board after considering the submissions by the Applicant as well as the requirements of the area concerned. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General makes a further statement that whenever such conversions are permitted, a report will be filed every six months so that the report could be scrutinized by the Court. This suggestion of learned Advocate General is accepted considering the fact that the Second Petition No. 168/2000 was essentially a PIL Writ Petition and, therefore, the Court ought to exercise necessary superintendence.

(c) The restrictions imposed on Town and Country Planning Board in para 5 of the Order dated 26thJune, 2000 will remain confined only to to the agricultural lands where there are tenants."

Thus, agricultural lands which were not tenanted were taken out of the purview of the orders dated 26/6/2000 and 10/7/2000.

8. Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000, which pertained to land bearing survey nos. 42/1 to 42/63 admeasuring about 30,000 square meters, came to be disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 23/06/2000. The Division Bench noted the judgment in "Kamat Construction Pvt. Ltd."(supra) and in Writ Petition no. 305 of 2000 , reported in 2000(2) Goa L.T. 447. It was observed that the Deputy Collector in pursuance of the Order of this Court and by an order dated 28/06/2002 decided the question whether the lands concerned in that case were tenanted on the date on which Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 came into force, without hearing the petitioners in that case. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and directed him to decide the issue whether there was any tenancy on the date on which the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 came into force and whether any illegal conversion had taken place in respect of the said land therein afresh, after affording to the petitioners therein an opportunity of producing fresh material and of being heard. The interim orders in Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000 were vacated, without however vacating the interim orders passed in the Writ Petition No. 168/2000.

9. From the above orders, it is seen that the grievances in the present Writ Petition as well as in Writ Petition No. 71 of 2000 were noted in the said order dated 05/09/2000, reported in 2000(2) Goa L.T. 447, and also in the said order dated 5/9/2000 passed in Misc. Applications No. 406, 407 and 381 of 2000 filed in Writ Petitions No. 71/2000 and Writ Petition No. 168/2000. The grievances in the Writ Petition No. 168/2000, inter alia, are that in spite of the legislative mandate under Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, tenanted agricultural lands were being converted to other purposes and indiscriminate constructions were being carried out on the tenanted lands meant to be protected for the agriculture. This was allegedly done by the land owners by the device of filing proceedings before the Civil Court, which were either compromised or were not opposed and by obtaining decree, inter alia, to the effect and on the basis that the persons whose names were recorded as tenants in the column of tenants in survey Form No. I and XIV, were not tenants at all.

10. In the meantime, another letter petition dated 08/08/2003 was received from one Vincent Fernandes making similar grievances about low lying paddy fields at Kenvdem, Caranzalem, in an area of approximately 30000 square meters from survey no. 284/1. This letter petition was ordered to be registered as Public Interest Litigation and accordingly, the same came to be registered as PIL Writ Petition No. 388 of 2004 and is being dealt along with the Writ Petition No. 168 of 2000.

11. Before proceeding further, it would be advantageous to quote relevant provisions of law. Section 2(13) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Tenancy Act, for short) defines lease to mean a transfer of a right to enjoy land, made orally or in writing, for a specified, or unspecified period, and in consideration of rent. Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, inter alia, lays down that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person on or after the 1st of July, 1962 but before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be a tenant, etc. Section 7 of the Tenancy Act gives jurisdiction to the Mamlatdar to decide question whether any person is or was tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act. Section 7A gives power to the Mamlatdar to decide whether any land is or is not used for agricultural purposes. Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act lays down that no Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Tenancy Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar.

12. Section 54(1) of the Tenancy Act provides that it shall be lawful for the Government to take all measures for the survey, classification and assessment of all lands, for the preparation and maintenance of land records, including the record of rights and maps and for all other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf.

Section 61(1) of the Tenancy Act empowers the Government to make rules generally to carry out the purposes of this Act. Accordingly, the Government made the Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue, Survey and record of rights) Rules, 1967. These rules prescribe the procedure for preparing the record of rights for the purposes of Tenancy Act. Rule 48 of the said Rules provides that an entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in the register of mutation shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Rule 51 provides that all survey operations at the commencement under any law for the time being in force, or any rule, order or direction of the Government, and either completed or continuing at the commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been commenced, completed or to be continuing under the provisions of these rules. By virtue of the (amendment) Rule, 2006, Notification No. 1/1/93-RD dated 9/11/2006 published in the Official Gazette, Series No. 32 (Extraordinary) dated 9/11/2006, which came into force from 9/11/2006, the following proviso has been inserted in Rule 51 namely:

"provided that all surveys made and maintained and record of rights prepared and prescribed under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act 9 of 1960) and the rules framed thereunder shall be deemed to be survey made and maintained under the record of rights prepared and prescribed under the provisions of these rules."

13. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, which came into force on 2nd November, 1990 reads thus:

"Regulation of Use of Land.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974( Act 21 of 1975) or in any plan or scheme made there under or in the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968( Act 9 of 1969), no land which is vested in a tenant under the provision of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) shall be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture."

14. The legal effect of above Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act is that once there is vesting of land under Section 18A of the Tenancy Act, land of the tenant cannot be used for purpose other than agriculture and even under the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and the Land Revenue Code, change of user cannot be allowed. Change of user, otherwise, would be allowed only when there is vesting of the land as a consequence of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

15. In the case of "Madhumati Atchut Parab vs Rajaram V. Parab & Ors" [2009(4) SCC 183] : [2009 ALL SCR 388 : 2009(3) ALL MR 486 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Apex Court by Judgment dated 29/01/2009 held that the Mamlatdar, in the exercise of powers under section 7 of the Tenancy Act, is empowered to grant even a negative declaration that a person claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant. In the said case, the appellant i.e. Bhatkar had applied before the Mamlatdar for a declaration that the respondents were not tenants of the disputed property within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. By order dated 28/10/1986, the Mamlatdar had granted a negative declaration in favour of the appellant. In appeal, the Deputy Collector had confirmed the order of the Mamlardar by Order dated 05/01/1992. However, in an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal, the orders of the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar were reversed by order dated 30/06/1997. Thereafter, a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 113 of 1998 was filed before this Court challenging the order of Administrative Tribunal. The said Writ Petition was dismissed and the order of Administrative tribunal was maintained on the ground that under Section 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act, there was no power vested with the Mamlatdar to grant the negative declaration. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the appellant had filed Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 of 1999 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed by Judgment dated 26/06/2000. Even in another Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 1998, this Court by Judgment dated 13/06/2000 had held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant negative declaration that a particular person is not a tenant. Therefore, prior to the Judgment dated 29/01/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Madhumati", [2009 ALL SCR 388 : 2009(3) ALL MR 486 (S.C.)](supra), it was bonafidely believed by the authorities that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to grant negative declaration but it was Civil Court which had jurisdiction to grant negative declaration as to whether a particular person was not a tenant.

16. In the affidavit-in-reply dated 28/03/2005, the Under Secretary (Revenue), on behalf of the Government brought forth following facts pertinent to this case:

There were five Regular Civil Suits bearing number 215/94/D, 217/94/D, 218/94/D, 220/94/D and 221/94/D which were all filed on 29/01/1994 and they were disposed of respectively on 18/03/1995, 03/02/1995, 03/02/1995, 03/02/1995 and 18/03/1995. Respondents No. 18 and 19 were the plaintiffs in the said suits and respondents no. 20 to 40 were defendants. Regular Civil Suits No. 215/94/D and 221/94/D proceeded ex-parte and were disposed of on the basis that the defendants did not resist the plaintiffs' claim whereas other suits on the basis of admission. A declaration was granted that the defendants have no right in the suit property; the names of some of the defendants or of their ancestors were wrongly recorded and the defendants were restrained from entering upon the suit property. The Talathi was directed to delete the names of certain persons appearing in the tenant's column. The said suits pertained to survey nos. 14/1 to 14/6, 14/9 to 14/13, 14/15 to 14/17, 14/21, 14/22, 14/26, 14/27, 14/29 to 14/35 of Goa-Velha Village.

17. It is further seen from the said affidavit of the Government that the respondents no. 10 to 17 are the parties who had already obtained conversion sanads and were putting on construction on the property. The said sanads were based on the decree passed in the said suits. It was alleged by the Government that the petitioners will have to produce evidence to show that as on the date of enforcement of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, the said land was vested in tenants or had tenants as per the Goa Tenancy Act and that the petitioner had not produced any document to show the same.

18. The Respondent no.15 filed affidavit-in-reply dated 27/09/2008. He stated that he has purchased plot no. 5 admeasuring 442.7 square metres of the main property known as "Ambli Xet" also known as "Omblem Xet" situated at Goa Velha, Tiswadi, Goa which is surveyed under Survey nos. 14/10, 14/11, 14/12, and 14/13, from Mr. Kanta Datta Naik and another from Moula- Batim, Ilhas, Goa by virtue of sale deed dated 06/10/1917 which is duly registered under serial no. 1558/97 on 07/10/1997. He has produced the copy of the said sale deed. He further stated that he applied for the conversion of the said plot from agricultural to non-agricultural land under sub-section 1 of the Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 vide his application dated 26/02/1999 addressed to the office of Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, Goa. It is further stated that the Chief Town Planner/Ex-officio Joint Secretary of Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Goa, by letter dated 25/10/1999, addressed to the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, Goa and copy endorsed to him communicated Government approval of use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural land (residential) as sought by him in respect of property bearing survey nos. 14/10, 14/11, 14/12, and 14/13, admeasuring 442.7 square metres. The Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Panaji, Goa therefore issued the sanad bearing no. CNV/TIS/16/99 dated 02/05/2000. The Respondent no.15 has produced the said sanad and other relevant documents. He has further stated that he applied for necessary license/permission to the Office of Village Panchayat of St. Andre, Goa - Velha, Tiswadi, Goa for the purpose of construction of residential bungalow in the said plot no. 5 and after verifying all the documents, the Village Panchayat issued construction license no. VP/SA/2001-2002 dated 23/07/2001. According to the respondent no. 15, he has completed the construction work of residential bungalow and has been occupying the same with his family. He stated that the Town and Country Planning Department has done sub-division of the said property in the year 1998 and he was issued conversion sanad prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition. He further stated that there were Civil Court Decrees under which names of the persons in Tenant's column were deleted. He further stated that the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka addressed a letter dated 16/09/2002 to the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., North Goa clarifying that the land in question which is already converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use by the individual applicants was not tenanted land as on 02/11/1990. He has produced the copy of the said letter dated 16/09/2002.

19. The Respondent No.15 in his affidavit has further stated that this Court by Judgment dated 13/06/2000 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 44/98 has held that Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant negative declaration as to whether a particular person is not a tenant. He further stated that in the present case the Civil Court has already exercised its jurisdiction and has ordered deletion of the names of the persons from the Tenant's column. He pointed out that the said persons whose names were earlier reflected in the Tenant's column were not been declared as tenants as required under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act. According to him, the petitioner had not produced any evidence to establish that as on the date of enforcement of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, the said land was vested in tenants. He therefore alleged that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

20. Th learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the Judgment and Order dated 05/08/2010 passed in the case of "Pilerne Citizens Forum Vs. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary and others", (Writ Petition No. 294/08 and Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 1 of 2008), reported in 2010 (6) Bom. C.R. 594 : [2010(5) ALL MR 608]. He read out various paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in the said case and submitted that appropriate directions may be issued in terms of the said judgment. He submitted that the conversion sanads which are issued on the basis of compromise decree recorded before the Civil Court may be quashed and the Mamlatdar be directed to initiate the proceedings to inquire whether or not landlord - tenant relationship in respect of the properties surveyed under No. 14/1 to 14/35 of Goa- Velha existed. He further submitted that based upon such direction the Collector be directed to take appropriate decision in the matter of revocation of conversion sanads and further action with respect of the lands for which there is no conversion sanad or permission for development. He further submitted that the collector may be directed to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of Land Revenue Code and other enactments. He also submitted that appropriate directions to be issued in the matter of declaring the decrees issued by Civil Court as being null and void, as was done in the said case of "Pilerne Citizens Forum", [2010(5) ALL MR 608] (supra).

21. In the case of "Pilerne Citizens Forum", [2010(5) ALL MR 608] (supra), the respondents no. 7 to 17 therein were the Legal representatives of one Krishna Hadfadkar who was declared as a deemed purchaser under section 18-A of the Tenancy Act. Notice Section 18-C was issued by the Mamlatdar and was published in the Government Gazette. Purchase price was fixed by the Mamlatdar and consequently a purchase certificate was also issued to the said Hadfadkar. Therefore, the land had already vested in the name of Shri Krishna Hadfadkar. In the present case, the entries of the names of the certain persons in Form no. I and XIV of survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 of Goa Velha village were figuring in the Tenant's column. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the judgment in the case of "Pilerne Citizens Forum", [2010(5) ALL MR 608] (supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

22. It should be kept in mind that the position prior to 29/1/2009, as was bonafide believed, was that a Civil Court can give a negative declaration to the effect that a person concerned was not a tenant and that was held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 113 of 1998 as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 of 1999. Regular Civil Suits, filed for declaration that the defendants had no right to the property and for deletion of the name of the defendants from the survey records in respect of survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35, were all filed in the year 1994 and they were all disposed of in the year 1995 that is prior to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Madhumati", [2009 ALL SCR 388 : 2009(3) ALL MR 486 (S.C.)] (supra). The said decrees were passed about 5 years prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition No 168/2000. All the conversion sanads were granted pursuant to the said decrees and they are mostly in the year 1999 that is prior to the filing of the Writ Petition.

23. In terms of Section 18-A of the Tenancy Act, the tenants and not the persons merely claiming to be tenants became deemed purchasers. In respect of survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 of Goa Velha, neither any person was declared as tenant or deemed purchaser nor any purchase certificate was issued to any person, under the Tenancy Act. Section 2 of Goa Land Use Act would be applicable only to the tenants in whom the land is vested under the Tenancy Act. The Index of lands in Form No. I & XIV was prepared under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968. There is presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights and register of mutations, under Section 105 of the Land revenue code, which presumption is rebuttable. But in respect of agricultural tenants, under the Tenancy Act, a separate Index of Lands had to be prepared under the said Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue, Survey and Record of Rights) Rules, 1967 and under Section 48 of the said Rules, there is similar presumption about the correctness of the entries in record of rights and register of mutations, prepared under the said rules. The Forms No I & XIV in respect of survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 were not prepared under the said Agricultural Tenancy Rules. The amendment by means of proviso to section 51 of the Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue, Survey and Record of Rights), Rules 1967 by virtue of which all surveys made and maintained and the record of rights prepared and prescribed under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder, are deemed to be made and prescribed under the provisions of the said Agricultural Tenancy Rules, came into force on 09/11/2006. Thus, there is serious dispute whether prior to 09/11/2006, the entries in Form No. I & XIV, prepared under the Land Revenue Code, had any presumptive value, insofar as alleged tenancy under the Tenancy Act, is concerned.

24. It is seen that the respondent no. 10 after obtaining conversion sanad dated 24/02/1999 had obtained due construction license from the Village Panchayat which license is dated 22/03/1999 and the work of the building was almost completed. The respondent no. 11 had obtained conversion sanad dated 26/03/1999 and a construction license dated 09/04/1999 and his building is totally completed. The respondent no. 12 obtained conversion sanad dated 12/01/1998 and the construction license dated 30/04/1999. Respondent no. 13 obtained conversion sanad dated 24/03/1999 and the license dated 20/05/1999 and his construction had reached to roof level. One Agnelo Barreto who is not a party to the present Writ Petition obtained construction license dated 25/08/1996, however, it was noticed that no sanad was obtained and his construction had reached to the roof level. The respondent no. 14 obtained conversion sanad dated 2/5/2000 and her house is also completed. One Smt. Luourdina D'Souza, who is not a party to this petition has neither obtained conversion sanad nor license, but her house is being constructed up to the roof level. The respondent no. 15, as already stated above, had obtained the conversion sanad dated 2/5/2000 and had obtained the construction license dated 23/07/2001 and had already constructed Bungalow and is already occupying the same. The respondent no. 16 has obtained sanad dated 07/04/1999 his construction has reached up to plinth level.

25. The Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, who is a competent authority under the Tenancy Act, rightly or wrongly, has informed the Dy. Collector & SDO Panaji-Goa, by letter No. MAM/TIS/CI(I)/TN/RTs/Conv/2001/1245, dated 16/9/2002, that in respect of the matter of conversion of use of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes in the property bearing survey nos. 14/8, 14/9, 14/10, 14/11, 14/12, 14/13, 14/14, 14/15 to 14/19, 14/21, 14/25 to 14/30, 14/32, the applicants were heard on the issue personally and after considering the arguments and documents placed on record, which includes the order and decree of Civil Court, Junior Division, Panaji, he has arrived at conclusion that the land in question which is sought for conversion by individual applicants was not tenanted as on 2nd November, 1990.

26. The question of previous tenancy and vesting of the land in the tenants is a seriously disputed question and the questions regarding the legality of the decrees passed by the Civil Court, conversions granted by the Competent Authority, other permissions granted by the Competent authority and constructions licenses also granted by Competent Authorities are all seriously disputed questions which in our view cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances discussed above, the decrees passed in the Civil Suit cannot be termed as void ab-initio. If the said decrees are illegal or erroneous, they will have to be set side in appropriate proceedings/Civil Suits, filed for that purpose. Fraud which has been alleged will have to be proved on merits. It is seen that the respondent no. 15 had purchased the plot from one Mr. Kanta Datta Desai and his wife Mrs. Bharati. However these vendors are not parties to the present Writ Petition. It is seen that third party rights were already created in the lands prior to the filing of the Writ Petition and it is possible that many more persons who are likely to be prejudicially affected are not parties. It is further noticed that constructions have already come up in the said lands. In our view, in such circumstances, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised. The Petitioners or the Appropriate Authorities may approach the appropriate Court for appropriate reliefs.

27. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Courts for appropriate reliefs. Needless to say that Interim orders are vacated. No order as to costs, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Petitions dismissed.