The Goa Legislative Assembly on Wednesday unanimously passed the Goa Agricultural Tenancy (Amendment) Bill 2017, which revokes the amendments made by the previous BJP government to shift the tenancy cases from the mamlatdar to the courts of the senior civil judge.
The amendments will once again make the mamlatdars the authorities to decide the cases filed by tenants under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The tabled amendments also seek to return to the Collector and the Administrative Tribunal the powers to be the appellate courts and revisional powers under the Act.
Significantly, the amended bill also seeks to insert a new section 60C in the Act in order to fix the time limit for disposal of the applications within a period of three years from the date of their filing or from the date of the receipt from the court of the senior civil judge, as the case may be.
The amendment was passed after a heated debate, with the lone dissenting voice, Nilesh Cabral, who while supporting the bill questioned the logic behind going back and forth on the issue.
"Will this amendment resolve the issues of the tenants? I think not. But it instead adds an extra layer of quasi judicial authorities which the landlord can use to harass the tenant with repeated appeals. It appears to be anti-tenant and pro landlord," Cabral said.
He also said that the concerns of the comunidades and other landholders were not taken into consideration.
Sports Minister Manohar "Babu" Ajgaonkar said that the BJP government's decision to move the cases from the mamlatdar courts to that of the senior civil judge had backfired on the BJP and it was the reason why the Congress managed to win so many seats in the election.
"If there's anyone who has been embarrassed by this amendment it is the BJP. But we have no shame in bringing this amendment," Ajgaonkar said.
To Cabral's question if there was any study on whether moving the cases to that of the senior civil judge, was indeed to the detriment of the tenants, Revenue Minister Rohan Khaunte said that the rate of cases going in favour of the landlord and against the tenant remained almost the same with it being 21% when it was with the mamlatdars and 23% when it was with the civil courts.
"If that is the case why not leave it to the civil courts?" Cabral asked.
However Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar and Revenue Minister Rohan Khaunte, said that the main reason was because it offered an easier option and the tenants found it more approachable.
"The atmosphere changed in 2014 (after the amendments were passed). This was the issue that Goans want. Back then the government undid the amendments that brought in a sunset clause and contract farming. Only the issue of moving the cases back to the civil courts remained. We should appreciate that we got this amendment bill in 100 days as promised," Khaunte said.
"Roughly around 3,900 cases will be transferred back to the mamlatdars. We are trying to streamline activity," Cabral said.
He said that the new section 60C which offers a provision for the cases to be disposed off within a period of three years since they have been filed is only a directive provision not a mandatory provision.
The bill was passed unanimously.
The amendments will once again make the mamlatdars the authorities to decide the cases filed by tenants under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The tabled amendments also seek to return to the Collector and the Administrative Tribunal the powers to be the appellate courts and revisional powers under the Act.
Significantly, the amended bill also seeks to insert a new section 60C in the Act in order to fix the time limit for disposal of the applications within a period of three years from the date of their filing or from the date of the receipt from the court of the senior civil judge, as the case may be.
The amendment was passed after a heated debate, with the lone dissenting voice, Nilesh Cabral, who while supporting the bill questioned the logic behind going back and forth on the issue.
"Will this amendment resolve the issues of the tenants? I think not. But it instead adds an extra layer of quasi judicial authorities which the landlord can use to harass the tenant with repeated appeals. It appears to be anti-tenant and pro landlord," Cabral said.
He also said that the concerns of the comunidades and other landholders were not taken into consideration.
Sports Minister Manohar "Babu" Ajgaonkar said that the BJP government's decision to move the cases from the mamlatdar courts to that of the senior civil judge had backfired on the BJP and it was the reason why the Congress managed to win so many seats in the election.
"If there's anyone who has been embarrassed by this amendment it is the BJP. But we have no shame in bringing this amendment," Ajgaonkar said.
To Cabral's question if there was any study on whether moving the cases to that of the senior civil judge, was indeed to the detriment of the tenants, Revenue Minister Rohan Khaunte said that the rate of cases going in favour of the landlord and against the tenant remained almost the same with it being 21% when it was with the mamlatdars and 23% when it was with the civil courts.
"If that is the case why not leave it to the civil courts?" Cabral asked.
However Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar and Revenue Minister Rohan Khaunte, said that the main reason was because it offered an easier option and the tenants found it more approachable.
"The atmosphere changed in 2014 (after the amendments were passed). This was the issue that Goans want. Back then the government undid the amendments that brought in a sunset clause and contract farming. Only the issue of moving the cases back to the civil courts remained. We should appreciate that we got this amendment bill in 100 days as promised," Khaunte said.
"Roughly around 3,900 cases will be transferred back to the mamlatdars. We are trying to streamline activity," Cabral said.
He said that the new section 60C which offers a provision for the cases to be disposed off within a period of three years since they have been filed is only a directive provision not a mandatory provision.
The bill was passed unanimously.
