A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa & Ors. revolves around the legality of a compromise entered between a Communidade and private respondents regarding tenanted agricultural land. The core issue addressed was whether the Administrative Tribunal of Goa rightly refused permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades to validate a compromise that would bifurcate land and extinguish tenancy rights, despite a judicial declaration of tenancy in favour of the private respondents. The compromise sought to grant quasi-freehold rights to the private parties and permit non-agricultural usage of agricultural land, both in contravention of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court’s decision, branding the compromise a veiled attempt to bypass statutory mandates and thereby dismissed the appeal.

Keywords: Compromise proceedings, Tenancy rights, Consent terms, Freehold ownership, Agricultural land, Non-agricultural use, Abuse of law, Article 154(3), Goa Tenancy Act, Land Use Regulation.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Communidade system, a legacy of Portuguese colonisation, governs collective land ownership in Goa. The dispute herein arose when Communidade of Tivim attempted to compromise litigation with private respondents over two parcels of agricultural land. The private respondents had been judicially recognised as agricultural tenants in earlier proceedings. However, the Communidade, facing the prospect of losing land in appeal, attempted to settle by offering a 60:40 land division through consent terms.

These consent terms effectively extinguished the respondents’ tenancy rights, substituting them with ownership-like rights, and authorised land use beyond agriculture, all without adhering to the statutory mechanism under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Land Use Act, 1991. Since such terms required approval from the Administrative Tribunal under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, permission was sought but refused. The High Court of Bombay at Goa upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

This judgment is a reiteration of the supremacy of statutory safeguards for tenants and strict interpretation of land laws that prohibit informal or non-statutory alterations of legally protected agricultural rights. The Supreme Court scrutinised the legality of the compromise in light of land law statutes and reinforced that statutory compliance cannot be circumvented through private agreements or communal resolutions without Tribunal oversight.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Two agricultural lands, Survey No. 448/0 (Oiteil-De-Madel) and Survey No. 440/0 (Levelechy Aradi), located in Tivim, Bardez Goa, were leased by the Communidade to the predecessors of the private respondents in July 1978. A civil suit in 1986 secured the tenant status of the lessees, which went unchallenged and attained finality.

Upon the death of the original lessee in 2015, the successors filed a tenancy declaration application under Section 7 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The Trial Court declared the private respondents as tenants in its judgment dated 01.09.2017. This declaration was unopposed due to the Communidade’s absence during proceedings and became effective.

The Communidade filed an appeal, but during its pendency, passed a resolution to settle the matter by allotting 60% of the land to the respondents and retaining 40%. Consent terms were finalised at a General Body Meeting. These terms, however, required Administrative Tribunal’s approval under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades. When submitted, the Tribunal rejected them, noting statutory violations. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the compromise violated both the Tenancy Act and Land Use laws. This formed the basis for the appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Administrative Tribunal was correct in refusing permission to the appellant under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades to enter into a compromise with private respondents?

ii. Whether the consent terms violated the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991?

iii. Can a Communidade compromise tenancy rights through private agreements without adhering to statutory procedures?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the consent terms were prepared in good faith and were aimed at preserving a portion of the land rather than losing it all in litigation. They argued that the Communidade, being a self-governing community entity, had autonomy under Article 30(4)(g) of the Code of Comunidades to deliberate and resolve disputes, including through compromise. The compromise was claimed to be a strategic decision in the best interest of the community and its members.

It was further contended that Article 154(3) merely envisaged approval from the Tribunal and should not override the substantive decision-making of the Communidade, especially when the private respondents themselves had agreed to the terms. The appellant insisted that the intent was not to violate tenancy protections, but to rationally settle an ongoing legal conflict and avoid prolonged litigation.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondents submitted that the proposed compromise was illegal and an abuse of the law. They highlighted that the consent terms conferred full ownership rights over 60% of the land to the respondents and unrestricted usage rights over the remaining 40% to the Communidade. Such rights bypassed statutory procedures mandated in Chapter IIA of the Tenancy Act for converting tenancy to ownership and violated Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act by permitting non-agricultural use of agricultural land.

The respondents further argued that judicially declared tenancy rights could not be extinguished through private agreements. They maintained that the Tribunal rightly rejected the terms as the compromise subverted the framework of both the Tenancy Act and Land Use Regulation. They emphasized the precedent that statutory mandates must override private consent when public law rights are involved.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades

ii. Section 7, 9, 10, 11, 18A to 18K of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964

iii. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991

iv. Article 30(4)(g) of the Code of Comunidades

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court unequivocally dismissed the appeal. It held that the Administrative Tribunal was justified in refusing permission for the compromise. The Court examined the consent terms and found them contrary to statutory law, specifically Chapter IIA of the Goa Tenancy Act, and Section 2 of the Land Use Regulation Act. The Court noted that the parties sought to confer ownership rights and permit non-agricultural land use without complying with statutory mandates.

It stressed that compromise cannot be used to nullify statutory protections or judicial declarations. The compromise terms, by annulling the 2017 tenancy declaration judgment without adjudication in appeal, were seen as undermining judicial finality. The court also warned against using such agreements to frustrate legislative intent. It clarified that Article 30(4)(g) only allows internal deliberation by the Communidade and does not empower unilateral implementation without Tribunal sanction.

The Court reiterated that tenancy can only be terminated under the modes prescribed in Section 9 of the Tenancy Act. The compromise neither followed those procedures nor respected the process for conferring ownership under Sections 18A to 18K. Thus, it termed the compromise as a blatant abuse of process, and not legally sustainable.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core reasoning of the Court is that tenancy rights created under a statutory scheme cannot be overridden by private agreements or communal resolutions that do not comply with statutory processes. The Court held that such rights, once judicially declared, cannot be extinguished except in accordance with the Tenancy Act, which prescribes specific mechanisms for purchase or surrender.

The Court also underscored that once land is declared tenanted, it can only be used for agricultural purposes, and not diverted for other uses, as prohibited under Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Regulation Act. The consent terms violated this prohibition. The judgment emphasized that legal compromise under Article 154(3) requires strict conformity with existing land laws, and any attempt to bypass statutory procedure, even if consensual, cannot be permitted. The consent terms attempted to confer de facto ownership without the de jure process.

The Court held that the Administrative Tribunal had a duty to scrutinize the legality and statutory compatibility of any compromise, and not merely act as a rubber stamp for communal resolutions. This upholds the principle that public law rights such as tenancy cannot be disposed of through private arrangements unless explicitly authorised by law.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court noted that while Communidades have historic and autonomous roots, and their decisions deserve deference, their autonomy is not absolute. They are bound by statutory frameworks when their decisions affect third-party rights or involve matters governed by public law. Article 30(4)(g) merely allows a forum for communal deliberation; it does not confer authority to override law or judicial determinations.

Another significant obiter is the Court’s warning that such consent terms may become tools for land speculation or regularising illegal conversions. Such “agreements” disguised as settlements pose a threat to land reform policies and judicial integrity. By allowing such compromise, it would set a dangerous precedent enabling landlords and community bodies to nullify tenancy declarations via contractual means, defeating the statutory purpose.

The Court also observed that its judgment should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of tenancy claims in the pending appeal. It preserved the parties’ rights to litigate the substantive dispute properly, but forbade the short-circuiting of statutory pathways through so-called settlements.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Any compromise involving tenancy rights under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act must strictly comply with statutory procedures provided in Sections 9 to 18K.

ii. Consent terms that confer ownership or alter land use from agricultural to non-agricultural are illegal unless approved under the statutory mechanisms of the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Regulation Act.

iii. Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades mandates Administrative Tribunal approval for any compromise; such approval must be substantive and not formal.

iv. Communidades have no power to override statutory tenancy rights or judicial findings by internal resolutions.

v. Administrative Tribunals must apply rigorous scrutiny while approving compromises affecting tenancy, land rights, or public law entitlements.

vi. Statutory protections for tenants cannot be compromised through private settlements; courts and tribunals must prevent any circumvention.

vii. Consent terms that attempt to nullify judicial decrees or statutory rights without appellate adjudication are invalid.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment is a significant affirmation of the principle that private settlements cannot override public law rights or statutory protections. The Supreme Court has effectively barred community institutions such as Communidades from attempting to compromise land rights through agreements that bypass judicial scrutiny and legislative intent.

The ruling protects the integrity of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is designed to secure tenant rights and prevent exploitation through informal settlements. It also strengthens the enforcement of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, which restricts non-agricultural use of agricultural land. By invalidating the compromise, the Court has preserved the sanctity of judicial declarations and prevented abuse of process.

The decision has broader implications for similar disputes across Goa, where land rights, community governance, and real estate interests often intersect. The Court has created a clear judicial barrier against any attempts to dilute tenancy or land use laws via informal arrangements. It reaffirms that all compromises involving such rights must flow through proper legal channels and stand up to statutory scrutiny.

By preserving the rule of law and upholding tenants’ statutory entitlements, the Court has struck a balance between community autonomy and legal compliance. This judgment will likely be cited as a benchmark in future disputes involving Communidades, tenancy rights, and illegal land conversions.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. None explicitly cited in the judgment.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Comunidades, Article 154(3) and Article 30(4)(g)
ii. Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Sections 7, 9, 10, 11, 18A to 18K
iii. Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, Section 2