JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J. The appellant herein is the original respondent and the respondent herein is the original applicant. The Government of Goa acquired an area of about 19,799 sq. metres of Chalta No. 1. Part 1 of P.T. Sheet No. 112 belonging to the applicant and awarded a compensation. The respondent claimed 50% of the compensation on the ground that he was a tenant in respect of the acquired land. His case was that he was a tenant of two plots known as 'Cajual de Duler' and 'Cajual de Temericho Sorvo' from the year 1958 and the portion acquired is part of the plot of Cajual de Temericho Sorvo. The Reference Court framed the following issue : "Whether the respondent proves that he is a tenant/deemed owner of the land acquired and that he is entitled to entire compensation. The Reference Court thereafter proceeded to examine the issue as to whether the appellant herein who was the respondent before the Reference Court was a tenant and rejected the claim of the appellant herein. 2. The appeal has been preferred against the said order of the Reference Court by the appellant herein. The short and only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Reference Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to tenancy. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 11th August, 1978. The claim is based on the fact that the property is a cashew garden. On the date of the Award, the 5th Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 had been struck down. The said judgment has subsequently been reversed by the Apex Court subsequent to the inclusion of Amendment in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Section 58 (2) of the Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the issue of tenancy and or tenant. When such an issue arises even before the Civil Court had jurisdiction, the Civil Court is bound to frame an issue and direct the person claiming to be the tenant to move the appropriate forum, herein the Mamlatdar under the Tenancy Act to dispose of the said issue. On the disposal of the said issue by the Mamlatdar, the Civil Court is bound to dispose of the suit in terms of the order passed by the Authorities under the Tenancy Act. 3. On the disposal of the said issue by the Mamlatdar, the Civil Court is bound to dispose of the suit in terms of the order passed by the Authorities under the Tenancy Act. 3. It is no doubt true that in the instant case, the Civil Court had jurisdiction when the suit was filed to entertain the suit. However, the issue pertaining to tenancy could not have been settled by it in view of the fact of the inclusion of the 5th Amendment in the IXth Schedule to Constitution of India and the judgment of the Apex Court upholding the 5th Amendment. The Award was passed by the District Judge on 25th August, 1994, the judgment of the Apex Court upholding the 5th Amendment has been reported in AIR 1990 SC 1770 . The Civil Court admittedly, therefore, had no jurisdiction to proceed with the disposal of the suit even though initially it had jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reason, the Award of the Additional District Judge dated 25th August, 1994 is to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 4. The matter is remanded to the Additional District Judge, Panaji to direct the appellant herein, the respondent in Land Acquisition Case No. 10 of 1986 to move the Mamlatdar for a decision on Issue No. 1. Pending the decision by the Mamlatdar and or the other Authorities under the Act, the Reference is to be stayed. The Reference to be disposed of after the decision of the Authorities under the Tenancy Act. 5. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Matter remanded.