Mamlatdar — Powers, Procedure (Sections 58–64)

Before reciting "Sections 58-64", correct the premise. In the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, the Mamlatdar's powers and procedure are not housed in Sections 58-64 at all. The jurisdictional keystone is Section 58 (bar to the jurisdiction of courts), and the working procedural code is Chapter VI, "Tribunal, Procedure and Appeals" (Sections 43-53) — read with the Mamlatdar's substantive trigger in Section 7. Sections 59-62 are general provisions (directions, penalty, rules, removal of difficulties), and the principal Act has no Sections 63 or 64. This note states what the Mamlatdar can actually do, the procedure he must follow, the appeal-and-revision hierarchy above him, and the case law fixing the boundary between his exclusive jurisdiction and the civil court.

The numbering correction: where the Mamlatdar's powers really live

The label "Sections 58-64" is a trap. In the principal Act, Section 58 is "Bar to jurisdiction of Courts", Section 58-A (inserted 1966) bars appearance by pleaders, Section 59 empowers Government to issue directions to Mamlatdars, the Tribunal and Collectors, Section 60 is the penalty provision (fine up to Rs. 500), Sections 60-A and 60-B deal with cognizability and offences by companies, Section 61 is the rule-making power, and Section 62 is the power to remove difficulties. There are no Sections 63 or 64 in the bare Act. The Mamlatdar's adjudicatory powers and the procedure governing him are found in Chapter VI (Sections 43-53), "Tribunal, Procedure and Appeals", while his substantive jurisdiction to decide tenancy questions flows from Section 7. The correct exam framing, therefore, is: Section 7 plus Section 58 (jurisdiction), Sections 43-46A (powers and commencement), Sections 47-53 (transfer, execution, appeal, revision, procedure). For the scheme of the Act see the introduction and agrarian-reform background.

Who is the Mamlatdar and where his substantive jurisdiction begins

Section 2(15) defines the "Mamlatdar" as any officer appointed by Government to perform a Mamlatdar's duties under the Act. He is the first-instance quasi-judicial authority for almost every dispute the statute generates. His master trigger is Section 7: if any question arises whether a person is or was a tenant, or should be deemed a tenant under the Act, the Mamlatdar shall, after holding an inquiry, decide the question. Allied trigger provisions scatter through the Act — Section 8 (whether land is used for agricultural purposes), Section 12 (recovery and deposit of rent), Section 18 (possession), and the deemed-purchase machinery of Chapter IIA (Sections 18A-18C, where the Mamlatdar issues notices and fixes the purchase price). The breadth of Section 7 is settled: jurisdiction is not confined to cases where the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted; it is precisely where one side alleges and the other denies the relationship that the question is reserved exclusively to the Mamlatdar. These status questions feed directly into the statutory definitions of tenant, landlord and land.

Inquiry powers — Sections 45, 46 and 46-A

The Mamlatdar (and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal) inquire with court-like powers. Section 45 vests in the Tribunal the same powers a civil court has under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for: proof of facts by affidavit; summoning and enforcing attendance and examining persons on oath; compelling production of documents; awarding costs; and such other powers as may be prescribed. Section 46 prescribes how proceedings begin — save where the Act provides otherwise, all inquiries before the Mamlatdar or Tribunal are commenced by an application stating the parties' particulars, a description of the property or amount claimed, the cause of action, and a list of documents and witnesses. Importantly, Section 46-A (inserted 1966) lets the Mamlatdar act suo motu: notwithstanding that no application has been made, he may, on information, his own knowledge or suspicion of a contravention, hold an inquiry as if an application had been made; and Government (or the Collector) may direct him to inquire where it believes the Act has been contravened. This inquisitorial power is what makes the Mamlatdar an enforcer of agrarian reform, not merely an arbiter of private claims — central to the tenant's security of tenure.

The jurisdictional keystone — Section 58 bar to civil and criminal courts

Section 58 is the provision that gives the Mamlatdar's powers their teeth. Section 58(1) immunises anything done in good faith under the Act from suit. Section 58(2) is the ouster clause: save as provided in this Act, no court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Collector or Government, and no order passed by these authorities shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court. The consequence is exclusive jurisdiction: tenancy status, rent, possession, surrender, termination and deemed purchase are all carved out of the civil court's competence. The Bombay High Court at Goa has repeatedly applied this, holding that a Deputy Collector or reference court confronted with a tenancy issue must refer it to the Mamlatdar rather than decide it, precisely because of the bar in Section 58(2). The bar should be read with Section 53(3), which deems all inquiries before the Mamlatdar, Tribunal and Collector to be judicial proceedings within Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code — confirming the forum's judicial character even as ordinary courts are excluded.

The duty to refer: civil court machinery and the leading cases

Because the bar is not absolute ("save as provided"), the question arises: what happens when a tenancy issue surfaces incidentally in a civil suit? The answer comes from the Supreme Court's construction of pari materia provisions. In Bhimaji Shanker Kulkarni v. Dundappa Vithappa Udapudi, AIR 1966 SC 166, the Court held under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 that where a defendant pleads he is a tenant and the issue arises, the civil court must refer that issue to the Mamlatdar and stay the suit pending his determination. Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi, AIR 1979 SC 653, reinforced this: where a statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to decide a question (there, whether a party is an agriculturist), the civil court is bound to frame the issue and refer it, and cannot itself decide it. Goa courts apply the same logic through Section 58(2) read with Section 7: the tenancy issue is reserved to the Mamlatdar, the civil court refers and waits, and then proceeds on the basis of his finding. The result is a managed interface, not a watertight wall — the civil court keeps the suit but loses the tenancy question.

Can the Mamlatdar declare a person is NOT a tenant?

A recurring Goa-specific controversy is whether Section 7 lets the Mamlatdar grant a negative declaration. In Dattaram A. Arolkar v. Mamlatdar of Mormugao, AIR 2001 Bom 74, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) held that a Mamlatdar under the Goa Act had no jurisdiction to grant a negative declaration that the opponent is not a tenant, leaving a purchaser who wished to clear the survey record to the civil court. That narrow reading was decisively corrected by the Supreme Court in Madhumati Atchut Parab v. Rajaram V. Parab, (2009) 4 SCC 183. Construing Section 7 — which the Court held to be pari materia with Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy Act — it held that the power to decide whether a person "is or was a tenant" necessarily embraces the converse: the Mamlatdar can, after inquiry, declare that a person is not a tenant. Madhumati Parab thus widens the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction and, by implication, narrows the residual civil-court role. The point matters across the Act — for instance when a landlord seeking resumption first needs the tenancy entry cleared.

Transfer and execution of orders — Sections 47 and 48

Procedure does not end at adjudication. Section 47 allows Government, or the Collector within his jurisdiction, after notice to the parties, to transfer any proceeding pending before one Mamlatdar to another, who then exercises jurisdiction in it; Government may in exceptional circumstances or public interest transfer to itself a proceeding pending before a Tribunal or Collector. Section 48 governs execution: any sum directed to be paid by a Mamlatdar, Tribunal or Collector (including costs) is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue, and an order awarding or restoring possession is executed in the prescribed manner. Crucially, the proviso bars recovery or execution until the appeal/revision period expires — except an order directing restoration of possession to a tenant, which may be executed at once (the Explanation excludes persons merely deemed tenants under Sections 4 or 5 from this fast-track). Section 48(2) makes the Mamlatdar's order in execution proceedings final, subject to appeal. The land-revenue recovery route spares the decree-holder a fresh civil execution and keeps the whole enforcement chain inside the revenue system.

The appellate and revisional hierarchy — Sections 49, 50 and 51

The Act builds a tight three-tier hierarchy. Section 49 provides that from every order (other than an interim order) of the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, an appeal lies to the Collector, whose order is final, subject to revision by the Administrative Tribunal; and from an original order of the Collector, an appeal lies to the Administrative Tribunal, whose order is final. Section 50 supplies revision: where no appeal lies or none was filed in time, the Collector may, on his own motion, on an aggrieved person's application, or on Government reference, call for the record of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal proceeding to test the legality, propriety and regularity of the order — but not after one year, and not without hearing the affected parties. Section 50(2) gives a parallel revision to the Administrative Tribunal against a Collector's order, on three narrow grounds only: the order is contrary to law; the Collector failed to determine a material issue of law; or there was a substantial procedural error causing miscarriage of justice. Section 51 defines the powers in appeal or revision — confirm, modify, rescind, remand with directions, or pass such other order as is legal and just — and provides that orders so passed are executed like the Mamlatdar's own orders. The Administrative Tribunal sits at the apex; only thereafter does Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court come into play.

Procedure, limitation and reasoned orders — Sections 52 and 53

Two provisions discipline the process. Section 52 fixes limitation and court fees: every appeal or revision application must be filed within sixty days of the order of the Mamlatdar, Tribunal or Collector, with Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applying (so condonation of delay, exclusion of time spent bona fide before a wrong forum, and so on, are available); and a prescribed court-fee stamp is payable notwithstanding the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 53 is the procedural charter: subject to specific provisions, the procedure before the Mamlatdar, Tribunal and Collector in all inquiries, appeals and proceedings is as prescribed by rules (Section 53(1)); every decision must be recorded as an order stating reasons (Section 53(2)) — a statutory duty to give reasons that is itself a ground of revision under Section 50(2); and all proceedings are deemed judicial proceedings under the Penal Code (Section 53(3)). Section 58-A reinforces the informal, accessible design: as a rule no pleader may appear before the Mamlatdar or Collector, though either may, in the interests of justice and for recorded reasons, permit legal representation at the party's own cost. The whole package — short limitation, reasoned orders, no lawyers by default — is aimed at quick, cheap relief for cultivators.

The genuine Sections 59-62: directions, penalty, rules and difficulties

For completeness, the provisions that actually bear numbers 59-62 should be stated correctly. Section 59 empowers Government to issue directions or orders to Mamlatdars, the Tribunal and Collectors to give effect to the Act — an administrative, not a quasi-judicial, control; it cannot be used to dictate the outcome of a pending adjudication. Section 60 makes contravention of the Act or rules punishable, on conviction by a Magistrate, with a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees; Section 60-A makes offences cognizable and (with the court's permission) compoundable, and Section 60-B fixes vicarious liability on directors, managers and officers for offences by companies. Section 61 is the rule-making power (rules subject to previous publication and to laying before the Legislative Assembly), and it is under Section 61 that the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Rules, 1965 — which flesh out the Mamlatdar's procedure — are framed. Section 62 is the usual power to remove difficulties. None of these confers adjudicatory power on the Mamlatdar; that, to repeat, comes from Section 7 and Chapter VI. Keeping this distinction crisp is the difference between a precise and a muddled answer.

Exam takeaways and common errors

First, fix the map: the Mamlatdar's substantive jurisdiction is Section 7, his powers and procedure are Chapter VI (Sections 43-53), and the civil-court ouster is Section 58(2); Sections 59-62 are general provisions and there are no Sections 63-64. Second, the bar is not watertight — under Bhimaji Shanker Kulkarni (AIR 1966 SC 166) and Gundaji Satwaji Shinde (AIR 1979 SC 653), a civil court facing a tenancy issue must refer it to the Mamlatdar and stay that issue. Third, the Mamlatdar can grant a negative declaration that a person is not a tenant — Madhumati Atchut Parab v. Rajaram V. Parab, (2009) 4 SCC 183, overruling Dattaram A. Arolkar v. Mamlatdar of Mormugao, AIR 2001 Bom 74. Fourth, remember the hierarchy (Mamlatdar/Tribunal → Collector → Administrative Tribunal), the sixty-day limitation under Section 52, the duty of reasoned orders under Section 53(2), execution as arrears of land revenue under Section 48, and the no-pleader rule under Section 58-A. The classic mistake is to treat Sections 58-64 as the Mamlatdar's procedural code; the higher-scoring answer flags the numbering, pins the procedure on Chapter VI, and anchors jurisdiction in Section 58(2). To orient across the statute, return to the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act notes hub.