By Adv.
John Fernandes
Initial
object of the legislation
The
Goa legislative Assembly then headed by Dayanand Bandodkar brought out “The Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964” which received
the assent of the president of India on 16/12/1964 and in order to give it a
special protection along with the 5th Amendment to the Agricultural
Tenancy Act have been included in the
IXth Schedule of the constitution of India. The object of the Act is to give protection/ownership
right to the marginalize section that is the tenants/cultivators from
the oppression and suppression of the feudal class which was then prevailing in Goan society in respect of the land which they were/are cultivating.
The
Goa legislative assembly in a recently concluded Assembly session by way of Bill No. 20 of 2014 had passed the Amendment to the Goa Agricultural
Tenancy Act 1964. That by way of present amendment the Goa Government has introduce
three major changes to the Agricultural
Tenancy Act. One of the change which the
amendment tries to introduce is to take away the authority of the Mamlatdar Court
in deciding the tenancy cases, Secondly
it introduces contract farming and thirdly it puts a time limitation to file tenancy cases.
That
from the bear reading of the recent amendment to the agricultural Tenancy Act it shows that the amendment is introduce without studying the ground realities, without application of
mind and without taking all the stake
holder particularly the Tenants/have-nots and
the institution which are working for the benefit of the tenants like the Mamlatdar, the agriculture department
etc into confidence/consideration. However it appears before introducing the present
Amendment the haves that is the feudal
class might have taken into consideration and it has been drafted as per their
whims and fences as the amendment is likely to benefit them rather then the illiterate and
ignorant farming class/have-nots.
Amendment Introduce without
understanding ground realities
As
stated by the Government one of the object of the amendment particularly in
introducing the Contract farming is to avoid fertile land from remaining
fallow. Before introducing such an amendment has the government have undertaken
any study/survey to known the ground realities as to why people keeps the agricultural land
fallow? The Answer may be in negative. As per my study most of the fertile
paddy field particularly in villages are kept fallow on account of problem of stray
cattle. The High Court of Goa in writ petition No.261 of 2004 ( Shri Audhut
Kurtarkar v/s State of Goa) has directed
the local bodies to solve the stray
cattle problem. The Government has also provided the local bodies with funds and manpower but no efforts have been made by
the local bodies nor by the Goa
government to solve the problem of stray
cattle as even today herds of stay
cattle’s are seen on the road and in the paddy field. In some cases the farmers
cultivates but during night time the stray cattle’s destroy the paddy field which disappoint the farmers from cultivating.
Secondly in some cases the land holding are small and segregated and it is surveyed accordingly, cultivation of which find difficult and uneconomical for the farmers which sometime also result in keeping the land fallow. Collapsed embankment ( Bandh ) due to which the saline water enters into the
field, Sluice gate opened by the fish folk at khazan land, Release of sewage
water by big residential complex into the paddy field sometime results in
keeping the land fallow. Government should have studies these problem first before
introducing any amendment as the problem have to be solved permanently. But
from the intention of the Government in introducing the present amendment there
is not intention of the government to solve problems but to create problems.
Time limit for Applications
By way of the said amendment the government has
introduce section 60C by which three year time limit has been put to file tenancy cases under section
7, 7A, 8, 8A, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18,18A, 18B, 18C, 18E, 18F, 18G, 18H, 18J
and/or 18K. The inserted section reads as under “No Court of
Senior Civil Judge shall entertain any application under section 7, 7A, 8, 8A,
10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 18A, 18B,
18C, 18E, 18F, 18G, 18H, 18J and/or 18K of this Act unless it is filed within a
period of three year from the date of commencement of the Goa Agricultural
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2014.” This
mean no tenant will be in a position to filed tenancy cases after three years from the date when the amendment
receives the assent of the governor. Why the burden is put on the tenant to
file cases and why not on the landlord if they are aggrieved.
The factual scenario in Goa is that after Administrative Tribunal Judgment passed in Tenancy Revision
Application No.71/96 (Dr. Rui Tito Vaz
v/s Agusta Simoes ) and 9 other connected
cases the Tribunal held that ‘The mamlatdar should first conduct inquiry
under section 7 under the Agricultural
Tenancy Act and thereafter decide the proceedings under section 18C.
The
judgment discusses that no separate survey was conducted under the Agricultural
Tenancy Act hence the survey conducted under the Land Revenue code cannot be
made applicable to the tenancy act. As per the judgment it can be concluded
that mere figuring of name in survey
record one is not entitled for tenant
ship, but one has to get himself/herself declare as tenant in respect of the
portion he or she cultivate. Which means every tenant even whose names are figuring in the survey records are not
tenant and they have to file tenancy
cases for declaring them as tenant? That based on the said judgment most
of the 18-C cases which were sue- motto initiated
by the government have been closed/discontinued. The judgment vitiates the entire tenancy act
and the 5th amendmentto
the Agricultural tenancy act which are even included in the IXth Schedule of
the constitution and has given special protection. By way of 5th
Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act Chapter
IIA has been introduce to the Agricultural Tenancy Act . Section 18A which
was introduce by way of 5th Amendment to the act says that “Tenants deemed to have purchased lands on
tillers day” that is from the year 1976 in which year the 5th
amendment to the Agricultural tenancy act came into force. But till today most
of the genuine tenants who are still tilling the land are yet to become the
owner, are yet to get the benefit of the law. Why the government is not coming
out with an amendment to give relief to these tenant? Why the
government is not resolving this
problem?
The further question arises after the amendment are
as follows. What about the fate of 18-C cases in which some
of the tenant have paid their purchase price but Sanad have not been issued to
them. What about those 18-C cases in which Judgment is passed by the Mamlatdar but the
purchase price is not paid, what about
those 18-C cases in which judgement is passed but not signed by the
concerned Mamlatdar and what about those cases in which payment is made, sanad
is issued but mutation is not done? The government had to answer these
questions before proceeding with the amendment.
Now the question is if a tenants name is figuring in
the survey record conducted under the land Revenue code, however he/she has not filed application within the stipulated
time as mentioned in the amendment? Does
he/she cease to be tenant or
cannot he or she claim the benefit of tenancy Act? Why the government has not given any clarification to that effect in the amendment /why
it is not implementing or making effort to make the genuine tenant as owners as per
the 5th amendment to the agricultural tenancy act. The Goa Government particularly the revenue
Minister had to answer these question and should come out with a concrete
solution.
Change in Jurisdiction
The
new amendment proposes to change the jurisdiction of tenancy cases from the
Mamlatdar court to Civil Senior court
may be with a intension to expedite the matter. But any study was done before
such an amendment as to why the matters
were getting delay before the Mamlatdar, the answer may be in negative. Is
there any guarantee that after the matters being transferred to the Civil Court
will they be disposed of in a time bound manner. Certainly
no as our civil court are already overloaded with Civil cases. Moreover the
proposed amendment empowers the civil Court to try and decide tenancy cases which means the tenancy cases
pending before the Mamlatdar of Dharbandora had to be transfer before the Sanguem court. Even
the tenancy appeal pending before the Dy-Collector of Canacona and Quepem had
to be transferred to the District Court Margao. The litigation in civil court
will be more costlier then that of Mamlatdar court which again instead of doing justice to the
poor farmers will do more injustice.
I
agree that in some case the tenancy cases used to get delayed and there are
many reasons for the same. First most of
the time the Mamlatdars are busy
with administrative work and give less
importance to tenancy or mundkar cases as a result hardly effective hearings in
such cases take place. Secondly Sometime they are being transferred abruptly
and the replacement take months
together. Sometime the mamlatdar are given two or three additional charges. Thirdly in most of the case the appointment of Mamlatdar is done on influence
(either political or those who can pay
more) rather than merits which hampers competency of the Mamlatdar.
These are some of the factors that are responsible in delaying the cases. That without finding the reason and without studying the ground realities
transferring the jurisdiction from one court to another court is not a
solution. It will only defeat the beneficial purpose of the legislation.
Solve the issue once for all
Why
government by way of amendment is not trying to simply the procedure under the
Agricultural Tenancy Act or under the Mundkar Act as after being declared the
tenant /mundkar had to file an
application for purchase, then again an application for mutation, and except for mutation every
time the tenant/Mundkar had to serve the
bhatkar in which case lot of time and money
of the have-nots get wasted.
The
Governor should have a broad thought before signing the present amendment. The
government should make sincere efforts to
solve and come out with such a amendment which will solve the tenancy problems of the poor farmers once for all. Is
there such a intention on the part of the present government certainly no. It
appears that the government wants to create problem so as to make the poor
poorer and the reach richer.
