Justices Dhulia and Chandran Reject Communidade Land Settlement: Supreme Court Warns Against Using Agricultural Land for Other Purposes

This was a major case of compromise of a tenancy on the part of the Communidade of Tivim Goa adjudged on July 14, 2025, by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India. The matter, Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa And Others. The (Civil Appeal No(s). (@Diary No. 16901/2025), throws light to the complex interplay between customary grant of land titles in Goa with contemporary laws on tenancy in agriculture. This decision, given by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, explains the restriction of any compromise that may evade the statutory provision, especially the Goa, Daman, and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1964 and Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act 1991 etc.

What are Communidades and what are their special characteristics?

embedding in the guts of this case is the Communidade a unique type of agricultural association which was common in Goa. The properties owned by these associations are also common and the revenues they generate are utilized in improving the lives of its members. This was based on the idea of collective village ownership and was historically referred to as Gaunkari System with the societies being referred to as gaunkaria. Even more, with time especially under the influence of Portuguese colonization, they became called as communidades. The Code of Comunidades regulates the administration of Comunidades and within the provision of its Article 154 (3) gives the Administrative Tribunal the authority of allowing the Communide to compromise a suit of which he is a party.

The Factual History: a decades-old controversy

Source of the given dispute entailed two properties, namely, Oiteil-De-Madel (Survey No. 448/0) and Levelechy Aradi (Survey No. 440/0), with one belonging to the Communidade of Tivim. The predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents leased these properties in July 1978. The predecessor brought a civil suit in which the court issued a decree on January 8, 1986, that they were tenants and such decree became final because no appeal was submitted. The predecessor died in 2015, and on December 8, 2016, the present defendants moved a tenancy case pursuant to the clause Section 7 of the Tenancy Act, 1964. On September 1, 2017, the Trial Court issued video-recorded Order permitting this application ex-parte against the Communidade, in which it declared the private respondents to be agricultural tenants. Communidade then filed an appeal against this ruling in the Ad-hoc District Judge-I (Mapusa, Goa).

The efforts of Negotiation and the Rejection of the Tribunal

In the course of the appeal being heard, an Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Communidade was conducted on March 14, 2021. The Communidade realized that they were likely to lose a good amount of land should the appeal be rejected hence it decided to settle the difference. The compromise that they offered was that the ratio of sharing land should be 60:40 in favor of 60 percent to the private respondents and the 40 percent to be more retained by the Communidade. After the negotiation continued, consent terms were reached on October 31, 2021. One must know, however, that these terms had to be filed in the Appellate Court with the prior authorization of the Administrative Tribunal of Article 154 (3) of the Code. The communication of these terms of consent was issued by the Administrator of Communidades on February 22, 2023 to the Administrative Tribunal, making the latter approve them. This permission was denied by Administrative Tribunal with its order dated April 13, 2023. It later was opposed by the Communidade before the High Court of Bombay at Goa which rejected the writ petition on August 6, 2024 and upheld the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.

The Core Legal Issue: Are the Proposed Compromise Agreed upon?

The main point of concern before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court was that was the Administrative Tribunal right in sanctioning the request of the Communidade to compromise the proceedings with the private respondents under Article 154 (3) of the code. This was in the best interests and of the Communidade and her members, the Communidade argued, to avoid having the suit properties classified as tenanted land, which circumstances would be unfavorable to her. They have also argued that Article 30(4) (g) of the Code provides the Communideade the authorization to discuss compromises in civil actions.

On the other hand, the State of Goa and the Administrator of Communidades found in favor of the decision of maximum-acting Administrative Tribunal on the grounds that the clauses of the consent were an attempt to circumvent and render null the contents of the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act. They have highlighted that the terms of consent effectively gave the respondents the right of full ownership and exclusive use of land forming 60 and 40 percent respectively and the rights of all uses, including non-agricultural uses. They explained that this was an outright breach of the statutory requirements.

The Affirmation of the Supreme Court: Affirmation of Statutory Frameworks

The Supreme Court having heard both the parties held it in favor of the Administrative Tribunal by holding that the terms of proposed consent were fallacious to say the least, as it only intended to subvert the statutory structure as envisaged in Tenancy Act as well as in breach of the Land Use Act. The Court stated that the compromise extinguished in effect the right to tenancy of the private respondents, which was pronounced by the judgment of Trial Court on September 1, 2017. This decision has been interpreted as an effort to preclude a judicial pronouncement by means of a trade off instead of challenging (its accuracy on grounds) in the course of the appellate procedure.

The given judgment highlighted that the Tenancy Act elaborates on the modes through which tenancy is to be terminated in Section 9. These are termination by surrender of the tenant (Section 10), by the landlord on particular grounds (Section 11) or under any other particular provision of the Act. This compromise as proposed by the Court was aimed at ending the tenancy process without following any form of this statutory methods.

Also, the Court proceeded to investigate Chapter IIA of the Tenancy Act or Special rights and privileges of tenants. According to the provision of Section 18A, all the tenants are considered to have purchased the land which they possess on the day of the tillers. A comprehensive process towards such purchase is also prescribed in the Act such as necessary public notices by the Mamlatdar (Section 18C) and fixed purchase price (Section 18D). Importantly, under the Sec. 18K a tenant who may already have bought the land is not allowed to transfer it without prior Mamlatdar consent. The Court noticed that upholding the suggested consent terms would do more than to grant total ownership to the tenant against this process but also give them the ability to alienate the land without the consent of the statutory authority.

The Land Use Act: Yet Another Obstacle

It was also noted by the Supreme Court that Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 was defied. Section 2 of this Act clearly provides that the land vested in a tenant under the tenancy Act, 1964 shall not be utilized in another purpose other than agriculture. This provision was specifically violated by the consent terms offered as this allowed both sides of the debate to use the land in the form of non-agricultural functions. The Court held that the compromise amounted to the abuse of the process of law and a ploy to frustrate the provisions of the law.

On the part of the Communidade standing on the ground of Article 30 (4) (g) of the Code, the Court explained that the Article merely gives the Communidade the authority to consult on terms of settlement which are still pending the sanction of the Administrative Tribunal. It does not give free hand to reach a compromise without such authorization.

The Pre-eminence of Law

By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the order of High Court of date August 6, 2024, no reason to interfere with it. The ruling highlights the fact that compromise should have a compliance to already established statutory framework and should not be employed as a means to avoid a legal procedure or provision. Notably, the Court made it clear that they were not making any judgment as to the validity of the tenancy claim they were merely ruling on at the time. The Merits of the Tenancy Appeal was therefore left at the discretion of the Appellate Court. The ruling acts as an important reminder to the judiciary of the need to ensure that when a law is passed to enforce specific rights as well as to regulate the utilization of land, the integrity of that law has to be kept in place. Sources