Oral judgment:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges the Administrator’s order dated 12.11.2009 and the Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 14.07.2011, confirming the Administrator’s order on the ground that the Administrator and the Tribunal, have not correctly interpreted the provisions of Article 438 of the Code of the Communidades.

3. The Petitioner Communidade, by invoking the provisions of Article 438 of the Code of Communidades (“the Code”), requested the Administrator to declare that the Communidade has acquired the shares of some of its Joneiros or Zonnkars, because such Joneiros or Zonnkars have not claimed dividends on such shares for 30 consecutive years.

4. The Administrator, by his order of 12.11.2009, has dismissed the Communidade’s application. The contents of the order dated 12.11.2009 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference.

                   “ No.1/28/Nagoa/2009-2010/530

                   Office of the Pdministrator of Comunidades South Zone, Margao.

                   Dated: 12/11/2009.

                   With reference to your application dated 13/01/2008 for requesting to publish the list of share holders in the Official Gazette for having not claimed the dividends for past 30 years and that the shares stand lost in favour of the Comunidade as per Prt.438 of the Code of Comunidades, I have come to a conclusion as under:

                   From the records of this Office it is seen that as per records submitted by the Comunidade of Nagoa a list was published in Official Gazette, Series III on 2/05/2008 and as there was some discrepancies in respect of the numbers of shares a corrigendum was published in the Official Gazette, Series III on 24/09/2009.

                   Further this Office directed the Escrivao of Nagoa Comunidade to submit the Budget books pertaining to past years inorder to verify the net income of the Comunidade and also to know whether the dividends were declared by the said Comunidade regularly every year.

                   The Escrivao of Comunidade of Nagoa by his letter dated 10/11/2009 furnished the information of the dividends paid from 1977 to 2006.

                   On going through the said record it is found that dividends were not declared for the years 1977, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985 and as such 30 years period is not completed in view of Prt.438 of the code of Comunidades in force, and hence, I pass the following Order:

                   ORDER

                   The consecutive period of 30 years cannot be calculated since 1977 as the dividends were not declared for the years 1977, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984 and lastly for the year 1985.

                   The application dt. 13/01/2008 filed by the President of Comunidade of Nagoa vide its letter No.98, alongwith the list submitted by the Escrivao of the share holders who have not collected the dividends for last 30 years is hereby rejected, since the same does not fit into criteria laid under Prt.438 of Code of Comunidades.

(Shri. Prashant P. Shirodkar)

                   Administrator of Comunidades of South Zone, Margao.

                   To,

                   The Managing Committee of The Comunidade of Nagoa.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of 12.11.2009, the Petitioner Communidade appealed to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2011, has upheld the Administrator’s order. Hence, the present petition.

6. Mr. Godinho submits that it is the duty of every Joneiro or Zonnkar to annually enrol himself to be entitled to receive the proceeds of the zonn. For this, he relied on Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Code amongst other connected Articles like Articles 20 and 22 of the Code.

7. He submitted that the fact that the Communidade may or may not have declared dividends for any particular year is quite irrelevant and that does not excuse the Joneiros or Zonnkars from each year claiming the dividends. He submitted that the Communidade has furnished evidence about the specified Zonnkars in claiming the dividends for 30 consecutive years and, therefore, the Administrator and the Tribunal erred in denying the Communidade’s request.

8. Ms. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate, defended the impugned orders, based on the reasonings reflected therein. She submitted that the Escrivao of the Communidade was called upon and has furnished information that this Communidade declared no dividends for the years 1977, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984 and 1985, Therefore, she submitted that even assuming without accepting that the Petitioners interpretation of the provisions of Article 438 was correct, the consecutive period of 30 days referred to was not completed. As such, the Communidade’s request was correctly denied by the Administrator and upheld by the Tribunal.

9. The rival contents now fall for determination.

10. Since the Petitioner’s case is based on Article 438 of the Code, the same is transcribed below for convenience of reference:

                   “Art. 438 - The comunidade acquires shares of the Comunidade by prescription if the dividends are not claimed for thirty consecutive years.

                   Sole § On expiry of this period, the administrator, having complied with the formalities prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 25, shall order their registration in favour of the comunidade, when there is no complaint, or when the claimer, having been advised to take up ordinary means, fails to initiate competent action within thirty days, with service of summons on the comunidade, in order to establish ownership.”

11. Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Communidade, also referred to the provisions of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Code in an attempt to make good his submissions that the provisions of Article 438 did not depend upon the Communidade declaring the dividends. Still, they were dependent upon the Zonnkars claiming the zonn by annually enrolling themselves.

12. Article 20 of the Code defines who may be members of the Communidade in accordance with Article 3. Article 21 provides that the right to zonn of the members is personal, inalienable and imprescriptible, and it shall only commence from the date of the primary enrolment, save for the excepted cases referred to under the said Article.

13. Paragraph 1 or Clause 1 of Article 21 provides “For receiving the proceeds of zonn, it is necessary, besides the primary enrolment, the annual enrolment of members by birth – zonnkars.”

14. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 21 do not appear to be relevant.

15. Article 22 provides that the rights laid down in clauses 2 and 3 of Article 20 shall commence from the date of the primary enrolment.

16. Clause 1 of Article 22 provides that, for receiving dividends on the shares and exercising the rights of the member, registration must be with the administration office and primary enrolment in the respective communidade.

17. Articles 182 to 192 deal with primary enrolment of Zonkars, and Articles 193 to 198 deal with annual enrolment of Zonkars.

18. Article 194 provides that the Zonkar, once primarily enrolled, fails to take steps to get annually enrolled, and get registered for a particular year, cannot receive the income of his zonn in respect of that particular year. He can, however, receive that income in any other year in which he has been annually enrolled, provided the claim is enforceable.

19. Now, based on all the above Articles, there is some lack of clarity regarding the receipt of income from the zonn and the receipt of dividends on the shares to exercise the rights of the members. For example, Article 22(1) refers to “receiving the dividends of the shares”, whereas Article 21(1) refers to “receiving the proceeds of zonn”. Similarly, even Article 194 refers to “receive the income of his zonn”.

20. Based, therefore, upon the Articles referred to, it cannot be concluded that there is any duty cast on a primary member or a member who is primarily enrolled to each year claiming dividends from the Communidade irrespective of whether or not such Communidade has declared any dividends for that particular year.

21. Mr. Godinho, however, referred to Article 3 of the Code. This Article totally provides that each Communidade comprises of a) members by birth-joneiros zonnkars; b) shareholders; c) members by birth and shareholders, and d) participants. Now, this Article does not clarify the question we are confronted with in this matter. This Article also does not throw any light on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 438 of the Code on which the Communidade relies to forfeit or acquire by prescription the shares if the dividends are not claimed for 30 consecutive years.

22. The record unmistakably shows that, for the 30-year period on which Communidade’s claim is based, the Communidade declared no dividends in 1977, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1985. Article 438 has used the expression “if the dividends are not claimed for thirty consecutive years”. Therefore, the crucial expression, “consecutive years”, cannot be ignored or excluded for interpretation.

23. If the Communidade fails to declare dividends for any year, the chain is snapped, and the consequence of the Code prescribing “for thirty consecutive years” must be given effect. This provision cannot be interpreted as virtually rendering the expression “consecutive years” otiose or redundant. It is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that cognisance has to be taken of every word, and no word or expression can be lightly ignored or rendered otiose.

24. There is yet another reason to prefer such an interpretation. The Communidade, by invoking Article 438, virtually seeks to deprive zonnkars who have been primarily enrolled of their rights of membership to the Communidade. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and unless all the preconditions which would lead to such serious results are strictly complied with, the Communidade, should not be allowed to acquire the shares of such members on the alleged ground that they are the ones who have not claimed dividends for 30 consecutive years.

25. The question of claiming dividends would usually arise once the Communidade is in a position to declare them and has actually declared them. If the Communidade itself is not in a position to declare dividends or has not declared dividends, it is not for the Communidade to say that the shares of its members stand forfeited to the Communidade, because such members did not lay any claim for the dividends.

26. Clearly, there is too much confusion and ambiguity on the aspect of declaring dividends and laying a claim to such dividends. The Communidade cannot claim any undue benefit from this confusion and ambiguity, particularly when it seeks to acquire its members' shares by forfeiting them. Such an action will have serious civil consequences for the members. No provisions were shown to me about the minimal compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play before such a consequence would ensue, though prima facie such requirements will have to be read in the unoccupied interstices of the Code. Therefore, this is even more reason the provisions must be construed strictly.

27. The approach of the Administrator and Administrative Tribunal in this case has been fair and quite consistent with the principles relating to the interpretation of statutes that have such drastic consequences. Accordingly, the orders of the Communidade and the Tribunal warrant no interference in the exercise of extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The communidade cannot take undue advantage of some ambiguous provisions in the Code and seek to forfeit or acquire shares of its members without strictly complying with the prescribed preconditions.

28. This petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The rule is discharged. No costs.