Plea against comunidade dismissed


The high court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a petition filed by Pilerne Citizens Forum and another alleging fraudulent alienation of a valuable property at Reis Magos, belonging to the comunidade of Pilerne, in favour of a tenant.
The petitioners stated that in the transaction, the comunidade did not get a 'single paisa' while tenant Furtado's heirs got more than 8 crore by selling the plots in the property. The petitioner contended that conversions and permissions could not have been granted as the land cannot be used for any other purpose other than agriculture.
During the hearing of the case, respondent comunidade's lawyer Y V Nadkarni argued that in the present case, there was no vesting of land in the person claiming to be a tenant.
A division bench comprising Justice F M Reis and Justice U V Bakre observed thus: "In terms of Section 18A of the Tenancy Act, the tenants and not the persons merely claiming to be tenants became deemed purchasers. Admittedly, in respect of survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne Village, neither any person was declared to be tenant or deemed purchaser, nor any purchase certificate was granted to any person, under the Tenancy Act. As is contended by the counsel for the respondents, Section 2 of the Goa Land Use Act would be applicable only to the tenants in whom the land is vested under the Tenancy Act and not to the persons who merely claimed to be tenants".
The court also held that in the present case, except the entry in Form No. I & XIV of survey No. 76/1 of Pilerne, in the tenant's column, 'practically there is nothing to support the alleged tenancy of Dr Furtado'.
"Third party rights have already been created in the residential-cum-commercial complex, constructed by the respondent No. 14 (M/s Supreme Realtors) in the property under survey Nos. 53/1-A, 53/1-A-1 and 53/1-A-2 at Reis Magos. The persons in whom such third party rights have been created are not parties to this writ petition. The 42 allottees of plots granted by respondent No. 4 (Comunidade of Pilerne) are also not parties to the writ petition".
While dismissing the petition, the high court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach other appropriate courts. [TOI]