JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---This appeal arises from the Award dated 22-7-1991, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 100/86, by the District Judge, at Panaji. The Government had acquired an area of 145 sq. metres of land of the property bearing Survey No. 17/1 of Village Saligao. Undisputedly, the land was owned by the appellant herein. However, the respondents claim right of tenancy to the same and, as such, claimed share in the compensation. In view of the dispute regarding apportionment on the compensation, the matter was referred to the District Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed an issue relating to the claim of tenancy by the respondents herein and after hearing the parties, decided the same in favour of the ress by the impugned Award. 2.Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant while assailing, the impugned Award submitted that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act and, therefore, the Reference Court should have referred the said issue to the Mamlatdar in view of specific bar under section 58 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. According to the learned Advocate, the Reference Court having proceeded to decide the issue of tenancy itself had acted without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside. 3.Shri E.P. Lobo, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since the issue of tenancy as framed, relates to the possession of the property, the Reference Court cannot be said to have committed any error and no fault can be found in the impugned Award. 4.Undisputedly, the respondents herein had raised the issue of tenancy which can be decided by the Mamlatdar in terms of section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act (hereinafter called as "the said Act"). Section 58 of the said Act clearly provides that 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. Section 58 of the said Act clearly provides that 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. In view of the clear provisions barring the Civil Court from deciding the issue of tenancy and there being specific provision in the said Act, empowering the Mamlatdar to decide the question as to whether a person is a tenant or not, ex-facie the Reference Court has acted without jurisdiction in deciding the said issue. That apart, the Apex Court in the matter of (Shri Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1756 has clearly held that whenever the issue of tenancy is raised by the party to the proceedings in Civil Court, such an issue is necessarily to be referred to the Mamlatdar who is competent to decide such issue under the said Act. The Reference Court having failed to do so, and having proceeded to decide the said issue by itself has clearly acted in breach of the provisions of the law, more particularly section. 58 of the said Act which clearly debars the Civil Court from deciding the issue of tenancy. In this view of the matter, the impugned Award cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5.In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned Award is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with a direction to refer the issue of tenancy raised by the respondents to the Mamlatdar of the concerned Taluka for necessary decision on the said issue and, only after receiving the necessary findings on the said issue from the concerned Mamlatdar to proceed with the matter according to law. 6.In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal succeed.