PONDA: Anguished at losing tenancy claim cases in civil courts, the agricultural tenants’ associations have demanded the repealing of the latest amendments to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, brought in by the then Manohar Parrikar-led government.
The tenants’ associations claim that the new amendments favour the landlords and builders lobby, as such, they demand repealing of the same in the current Assembly session and reverting to the old Tenancy Act of 1965.
Stating that amending the Tenancy Act was not a part of the BJP’s 2012 election manifesto, the tenants have demanded rectification of the mistake in the current assembly session. Failing which, they have threatened to come out on the road to defeat the BJP in forthcoming 2017 election.
Goecho Kul Mundakaracho Aavaz (Goa`s Tenants and Mundkars Voice) President Ramkrishna Zalmi, addressing the media Tuesday, said that 54 tenants have lost their cases in Pernem taluka, while four farmers have lost theirs in Ponda, after the cases were transferred to civil courts.
Therefore, he demanded that the new amendments brought in by the then Parrikar-led government be repealed.
The media briefing was also attended by Adv Satyawan Palkar and members of several tenants’ associations.
Santosh Mandrekar, a tenant, explaining the adverse impact of the amendments on tenancy rights, said the cases are dismissed for want of documentary evidence. This, he said, proves the Act was amended in favour of landlords.
He regretted that even the MGP leader and PWD Minister Sudin Davlikar too failed to raise his voice against the amendments.
Adv Palkar said that the civil courts demand documentary evidence and witnesses, which the tenants or mundakars cannot produce. In most cases, there are neither documentary evidence of tenancy, nor have the landlords certified that the tenants were tilling the land, Adv Palkar said adding, witnesses too are unavailable, as there are either no witnesses or the witnesses have died.
However, in the Mamlatdar court, he said, the procedure was simple; the tenants were not called up on to produce either documentary evidence or witnesses. They were deemed as tenants having the right to purchase the land they were tilling.
