: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2006 Communidade of Mapusa, Represented by its Special Attorney, Mr. Vincent Braganza, having its office at Communidade House, Near the Church, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. … Appellant V e r s u s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), Morod, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, GTIDC, Colvale Road, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. … Respondents Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2006 Communidade of Mapusa, Represented by its Special Attorney, Mr. Vincent Braganza, having its office at Communidade House, Near the Church, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. … Appellant : 2 : V e r s u s 1. Land Acquisition Officer (N), GTIDC, Mapusa Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division VIII, GTIDC, Sarvona, Bicholim Goa … Respondents Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2007 Communidade of Ella, Ella Ilhas Goa. Through its Attorney Shri Vishnu Kamat Helekar … Appellant V e r s u s Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Goa District (Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.) Panaji Goa. … Respondent Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Appellant. : 3 : CORAM:- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated:- 5 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. OKA,J ) These three Appeals were ordered to be heard together as a common issue arises. These three Appeals are preferred by the Claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the references under Section 18 of the said Act have been dismissed. 2. In First Appeal Nos. 310 of 2006 and 216 of 2006, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken us through the award under Section 11 of the said Act as well as the reference application made under Section 18 of the said Act. He pointed out that in the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that there were tenants in the acquired land and, therefore, 50% of the compensation amount has been awarded to the tenants. He pointed out that the claim of tenancy was disputed by the Appellant in both the Appeals. He : 4 : submitted that the issue of tenancy arose before the Reference Court which could have been decided only by the Mamlatdar in view of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1964). He invited our attention to the Section 7 of the said Act of 1964 and a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab V/s Rajaram V. Parab & Others {(2009) 4 SCC 183 }. On instructions, he stated that the Appellant will apply for a negative declaration of tenancy before the Mamlatdar. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in First Appeal No.34/2007 submitted that in case of one of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer in award under Section 11 had awarded the entire compensation to the Appellant and in respect of the remaining lands, the Land Acquisition Officer found that there were tenants who were entitled to share the compensation. He states on instructions that the Appellant will make an application for claiming a negative declaration before the Mamlatdar. We have heard the learned Government Advocate on behalf of Respondents. 4. After having perused the impugned judgments, we find : 5 : that issue of tenancy arose at least in respect of some of the lands subject matter of the land acquisition references. The issue of tenancy could have been decided only by the Mamlatdar in view of the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 58 of the said Act of 1964. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the other Courts to decide the issue of tenancy is specifically ousted in view of sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the said Act of 1964. In the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab ( supra ), the Apex Court held that the Mamlatdar exercising powers under Section 7 of the said Act, 1964 has jurisdiction to grant a negative declaration that a particular person is not a tenant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in these Appeals stated that the applications will be made seeking negative declaration within a period of four weeks from today. By the impugned judgment, the references under Section 18 of the said Act have been rejected. Depending upon the outcome of the applications seeking negative declaration, the Reference Court will have to decide the references afresh. Depending upon the outcome of the applications seeking negative declaration under Section 7 of the said Act of 1964, the Reference Court will have to consider the question of issuing notice of the reference to the alleged tenants. In the circumstances, in view of the statements : 6 : made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the applications for negative declaration will be filed, we are setting aside the impugned judgments and remitting the references to the Reference Court. 5. Hence, we pass the following order :- O R D E R (A) The impugned judgments and awards are set aside and the land acquisition references under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 are restored to the file of the Reference Court. (B) We accept the statements made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that applications claiming negative declaration of tenancy under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. In case such applications are filed within a period of four weeks from today, we direct the Mamlatdar to decide the said applications in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date of filing the applications. : 7 : ( C) The pending references before the Reference Court will remain stayed till the final disposal of the proceedings under Section 7 of the said Act of 1964. (D) The Appeals are partly allowed in above terms. All the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (F) The Mamlatdar will act upon an authenticated copy of this judgment. A.S. OKA, J F.M. REIS, J at*