Whom exactly does the Agricultural Tenancy (Amendment) Act 2014 benefit?
Advocate Joao Fernandes
joao_fe...@yahoo.com
In the 1960s, the Goa Legislative Assembly which
was then headed by Dayanand Bandodkar brought about
the Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964,
and it received the assent of the President of
India on December 16, 1964. To give it special
protection -- along with the Fifth Amendment to the
Agricultural Tenancy Act -- it has been included in
the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India
[which was added to the Constitution in 1951,
primarily to deal with a situation in which the
Supreme Court struck down land reform laws -Ed.].
The object of the Act is to give protection and ownership
rights to the marginalised sections. That is, to the tenants
and cultivators, from the oppression and suppression of the
feudal class which was then dominating Goan society in
respect of the land which the former were or are cultivating.
The Goa Legislative Assembly in a recently concluded Assembly
session, by way of Bill No. 20 of 2014, passed the amendment
to the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964. With this
amendment, the Goa Government has introduce three major
changes to the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
One change which the amendment tries to introduce
is to take away the authority of the Mamlatdar's
court in deciding tenancy cases, Secondly, it
introduces contract farming and thirdly, it puts a
time limitation over filing tenancy cases.
>From a bare reading of this amendment, it appears that the
amendment was introduce without studying the ground
realities, without the application of mind and without taking
into confidence and consideration all stakeholders,
particularly the tenants and have-nots and the institutions
which are working for their benefit -- like the Mamlatdar,
and the agriculture department. Yet, it appears that before
introducing the present Amendment, the haves of the feudal
class might have been taken into confidence and it has been
drafted as per their whims and fancies; the amendment is
likely to benefit them rather then the illiterate and
ignorant farming class or have-nots.
GROUND REALITIES
As stated by the Government, one of the objects of
the amendment particularly in introducing contract
farming is to avoid fertile land from remaining
fallow. Before introducing such an amendment, has
the government undertaken any study or survey to
known the ground realities over why people keep
agricultural land fallow?
The answer may be in negative.
As per my study, most of the fertile paddy fields,
particularly in the villages, are kept fallow on account of
problem of stray cattle. The High Court of Goa, in Writ
Petition No. 261 of 2004 (Audhut Kurtarkar v/s State of
Goa), directed local bodies to solve the stray cattle
problem. Government has also provided 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. Even today, herds of stay cattle are seen on
the road and in the paddy field. In some cases, the farmers
cultivate but during the night stray cattle destroy paddy
fields, which discourages the farmers from cultivating.
Secondly, land holding are often small and segregated and it
is surveyed accordingly. Cultivation becomes difficult and
uneconomical for the farmers which sometime also result in
keeping the land fallow. Collapsed embankments (bunds)
results in saline water entering into the field. There are
also issues relating to sluice gates being opened by
fisherfolk at khazan lands, the release of sewage water by
big residential complex into the paddy field. These are all
other factors which sometimes contributes to keeping the land
fallow. The government should have studied these problem
first before introducing any amendment as the problem needs
to be solved permanently. But from the manner in which the
government has gone about introducing the present problem,
there seems to be no official intention to solve the problem
but rather to create some more problems.
TIME LIMITS
By way of this amendment, the government has introduced
Section 60C, through which a three-year time limit has been
set to file tenancy cases under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 10,
11, 12, 14, 18,18A, 18B, 18C, 18E, 18F, 18G, 18H, 18J 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 is 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 the Administrative
Tribunal Judgment passed in the Tenancy Revision Application
No.71/96 (Dr. Rui Tito Vaz v/s Agusta Simoes) and nine other
connected cases, the Tribunal held that "the mamlatdar should
first conduct an inquiry under Section 7 under the
Agricultural Tenancy Act and thereafter decide the
proceedings under section 18C."
The judgement notes 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. Going by the judgement, it
can be concluded that mere figuring of a name in survey
record does not entitle one to tenantship, but one has to get
himself or herself declared as a tenant in respect of the
portion he or she cultivate.
This means every tenant, even those whose names figurein the
survey records, are not tenants and they have to file tenancy
cases for declaring them as tenant? Based on this judgement,
most of the Sec 18-C cases which were suo motto initiated by
the government have been closed or discontinued.
This judgement vitiates the entire Tenancy Act and
the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act
which has been even included in the Ninth Schedule
of the Constitution and has given special
protection. By way of the Fifth Amendment to the
Agricultural Tenancy Act, Chapter IIA has been
introduced to the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Section 18A which was introduced by way of the
Fifth Amendment to the Act says that "Tenants are
deemed to have purchased lands on Tillers Day" that
is from the year 1976 in which year the Fifth
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 owners, and are yet to get the benefit of the
law. Why is the government not coming out with an
amendment to give relief to these tenants? Why is
the government not resolving this problem?
Further questions arise after the amendment, including: What
is the fate of Section 18C cases in which some of the tenant
have paid their purchase price but the sanad have not been
issued to them? What about those Section 18C cases in which
the judgment has been passed by the Mamlatdar but the
purchase price has not been paid? What about those Section
18C cases in which a judgement has been passed but not signed
by the concerned Mamlatdar and what about those cases in
which a payment has been made, a sanad is issued but the
mutation has not been done? The government had to answer
these questions before proceeding with the amendment.
Now the question is: if a tenant's name figures in the survey
record conducted under the Land Revenue Code, yet he/she has
not filed an application within the stipulated time as
mentioned in the the amendment, what is the result? Does
he/she cease to be tenant or cannot he or she claim the
benefit of the Tenancy Act? Why has the government not given
any clarification to that effect in the amendment and why it
is not implementing or making an effort to make genuine
tenants owners as per the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural
Tenancy Act? The Goa Government, particularly the Revenue
Minister, needs 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 the Civil Senior
court. This may be with the intention of expediting the
matter. But was any study done before such an amendment, as
to why the matters were getting delayed before the Mamlatdar?
Is there any guarantee that after the matters are transferred
to the Civil Court they will be disposed off in a time-bound
manner? Certainly no, as our civil courts 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, say, the
Mamlatdar of Dharbandora will have to be transfered before
the Sanguem court. Even the tenancy appeal pending before
the Deputy Collector of Canacona and Quepem had to be
transferred to the District Court, Margao.
Litigation in a civil court will be more costlier then that
before a 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 any effective hearings in such cases take place.
Secondly, sometimes those in the post are transferred
abruptly and the replacement take months together. In some
cases, the mamlatdar are given two or three additional
charges.
Thirdly, in most of the case the appointment of a Mamlatdar
is done on the basis of 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.
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
Why is government by way of an amendment not trying to
simplify the procedure under the Agricultural Tenancy Act or
under the Mundkar Act? After one is declared the tenant or
mundkar, one had to file an application for purchase, then
again an application for mutation, and except for mutation,
every time the tenant or mundkar had to serve the bhatkar
(landlord) in which case lot of time and money of the
have-nots get wasted.
The Governor should have a deep 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 problems so as to make
the poor poorer and the reach richer.
--
John Fernandes is an advocate and can be contacted at
Zeferino Commercial Complex Quepem-Goa. Ph.9822169547,
