Summary of the Judgment Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa vs. State of Goa & Ors

Case Name: Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa vs. State of Goa & Ors.

Citation:
2025 INSC (REPORTABLE)

Judges:

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

• Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment:
July 14, 2025

Related Laws:

1. Code of Comunidades (Governs administration of Communidades in Goa)

2. Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Regulates agricultural tenancy rights)

3. Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 (Restricts non-agricultural use of tenanted land)

Background and Issue

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Communidade of Tivim (a traditional Goan village collective) challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to approve a compromise agreement with tenants. The core issue was whether the proposed 60:40 land division between the Communidade and tenants violated the Tenancy Act, 1964 and the Land Use Act, 1991.

Key Facts

1. Disputed Land:
   Two agricultural properties ("Oiteil-De-Madel" and "Levelechy Aradi") in Tivim, Goa, were leased to tenants in 1978.
   A 1986 civil suit declared the tenants' rights, which became final as no appeal was filed.

2. Tenancy Declaration (2017):
   In 2017, a court declared the respondents as agricultural tenants under the Tenancy Act. The Communidade appealed this decision.

3. Proposed Compromise (2021):
   The Communidade proposed a 60:40 split of the land:
   60% to tenants with full ownership rights (including non-agricultural use).
   40% to the Communidade, free from tenancy claims.
   The Administrative Tribunal and High Court rejected the compromise, citing violations of tenancy laws.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Violation of Tenancy Act, 1964:
   Section 9 allows tenancy termination only through specified modes (e.g., surrender by tenant or landlord’s application). The compromise bypassed these.
   Chapter IIA mandates a legal procedure for tenants to purchase land, including price determination and restrictions on transfer. The compromise ignored this.

2. Breach of Land Use Act, 1991:
   Section 2 prohibits using tenanted land for non-agricultural purposes. The compromise allowed unrestricted use, violating this provision.

3. Role of Administrative Tribunal:
   Under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, the Tribunal must approve compromises. The Court upheld its refusal, stating:
   The compromise was an attempt to circumvent statutory procedures.
   Article 30(4)(g) (Communidade’s power to deliberate on compromises) does not override statutory limits.

Conclusion

1. Appeal Dismissed: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that:
   The compromise undermined tenancy laws and land use restrictions.
   The Communidade cannot bypass legal procedures for land transfer or usage.

2. Merits Unaffected: The pending tenancy appeal must be decided independently per law.