1. Land grants rescinded for non-cultivation under Organizacao Agraria — Challenge to rescission based on waiver, acquiescence, and subsequent land reform legislation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1724
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1479 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1480 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1481 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1482 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1483 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1486 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1487 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1181 of 2017
Decided On : 24-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr Rahul Jain, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Ashwin N. Ramani, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Brijesh Shah, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narendra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ritik Bhanot, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Ms. Sukhdip Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vashudha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Pal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr Rahul Jain, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Ashwin N. Ramani, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Brijesh Shah, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narendra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ritik Bhanot, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Ms. Sukhdip Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vashudha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Pal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Important Points
The rescission of land grants under Article 12 of the OA must follow statutory conditions without independent proceedings, and mere delay does not equate to waiver of those rights.
Subject
Property Law - Land Grants and Rescission
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.41 R.1, O.41 R.2, S.100, S.80
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.240, Art.300(a)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.6
Land Reforms Regulation: S.57
UTTAR PRADESH TEMPORARY CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.240, Art.300(a)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.6
Land Reforms Regulation: S.57
UTTAR PRADESH TEMPORARY CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.3
Headnote
(A) Portuguese Civil Code, 1867; Decree No. 3602; Article 307 of the 1917 Law; Organic Structure of the Lands of Nagar Haveli, Article 12 - Land grants; Recission of grants; The Appellants sought to retain ‘Alvaras’ granted for land since 1923, which were rescinded by the Collector for non-cultivation. Courts held that rescission under Article 12 requires no independent proceedings and must comply with stipulated conditions. The High Court affirmed that mere delay does not imply waiver and that the Collector's authority is not abrogated by the 1971 Land Reforms Regulation because the rescission proceedings predated it. (Paras 1-96)
(B) Administrative Powers - The High Court held that there is no absolute prohibition against interfering with findings of fact in second appeal, especially when the courts below committed errors in their understanding of statutory provisions and failed to appreciate the facts adequately. (Paras 39-46)
(C) Estoppel and Waiver - The court reiterated that the principle of waiver is not applicable against a statutory obligation, particularly in matters of public interest. (Paras 52-56)
(B) Administrative Powers - The High Court held that there is no absolute prohibition against interfering with findings of fact in second appeal, especially when the courts below committed errors in their understanding of statutory provisions and failed to appreciate the facts adequately. (Paras 39-46)
(C) Estoppel and Waiver - The court reiterated that the principle of waiver is not applicable against a statutory obligation, particularly in matters of public interest. (Paras 52-56)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- sovereign functions (Para 58)
Table of Contents
2. Whether rescission for non-cultivation is barred by waiver, acquiescence, or delay — Applicability of 1917 Law and 1971 Land Reforms Regulation — Allegations of mala fides. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Special law overrides general law — Waiver inapplicable to public interest statutory obligations — Mere delay does not constitute acquiescence — Saving clauses preserve pending legal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 )
4. Statutory conditions rooted in public interest cannot be waived — No estoppel against government's sovereign functions — Special law prevails over general law — Saving clauses protect prior proceedings. (Para 31 , 54 , 58 , 84 )
5. Appeals dismissed — High Court judgment affirmed — Status quo vacated — Liberty granted to apply for occupancy rights under land reform legislation. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 )
6. Can statutory conditions for land cultivation be waived by the government?
No. Waiver cannot efface statutory obligations or defeat matters grounded in public policy. Since land grants for cultivation are rooted in public interest, the doctrine of waiver does not apply to the mandatory conditions of the Organizacao Agraria. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 )
7. Does inordinate delay by the government in rescinding land grants constitute acquiescence?
No. Mere delay or inaction does not lead to an inference of implied consent or acquiescence. Acquiescence requires clear and unequivocal conduct amounting to a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, which is not established by delay alone. (Para 60 , 61 )
8. How is the conflict between a general law and a special law resolved regarding land grants?
Under the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali, a special enactment tailored to a specific subject matter or territory (like the Organizacao Agraria) prevails over a general law (like the 1917 Law) where their provisions overlap. (Para 26 , 29 , 31 )
9. Does a new land reform regulation automatically invalidate rescission proceedings initiated under a repealed law?
Not if a saving clause exists. A saving clause preserves the operation of repealed laws for pending investigations or legal proceedings, allowing them to be enforced as if the law had not been repealed. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 88 )
10. When can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
While generally prohibited, the High Court may interfere if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, result from misreading of evidence, or ignore material evidence, thereby raising a substantial question of law. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The captioned appeals arise from a common judgment dated 11, 15, 16, 17.02.2005 (Impugned Judgment) delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (High Court) in several Second Appeals, in an issue pertaining to the recission of land grants relating to properties situated in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Dadra and Nagar Haveli). The said properties were parcels of land originally vested in the erstwhile Portuguese Government and were granted to the Appellants’ predecessors-in-title between 1923 and 1930, subject to certain conditions for agricultural cultivation. These grants were subsequently rescinded by the Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Collector), vide an order dated 30.04.1974, thereby setting in motion a protracted legal wrangle between the State and the Appellants that has spanned several decades.
2. What is perhaps most striking about the instant case is not merely that this Court is called upon to adjudicate a dispute originating over half a century ago, rather, it is the deeper irony that, even after seventy-eight years of independence, this Court remains engaged in resolving a controversy arising out of land rights conferred by colonial powers that once exploited this nation’s wealth and resources. Any critique or disquiet this Bench may express regarding the colonial legacy must nevertheless not be construed as a reflection on the legitimacy of the Appellants’ claims or the rights they seek to assert.
A. FACTS
3. Given that the Appellants’ land rights were conferred under the erstwhile Portuguese legal regime, the matter necessitates a nuanced understanding of the scope and import of those legal provisions as they existed a century ago, examined through the lens of Indian legal principles and established jurisprudence.
4. It therefore becomes imperative to methodically trace the sequence of events from the outset, so as to ascertain the origins of the dispute, the stakes involved for the respective parties, and the legal questions that call for determination and analysis.
4.1. The Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 (Portuguese Civil Code) was enforced upon the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu on 01.07.1870. Decree No. 3602 Regimen for the grants of the lands of the State of India (1917 Law) came into force thereafter on 24.11.1917. It provided for the grants of lands in the Portuguese-controlled territories of Goa, Daman and Diu, either temporarily or permanently, through a contract of ‘emphyteusis’ or ‘aforamento’ for the cultivation of agricultural lands, construction of buildings and other such activities.
4.2. Black’s Law Dictionary has defined the term ‘emphyteusis’ to be:
“A contract by which a landed estate was leased to a tenant, either in perpetuity or for a long term of years, upon the reservation of an annual rent or canon, and upon the condition that the lessee should improve the property, by building, cultivating, or otherwise, and with a right in the lessee to alien the estate at pleasure or pass it to his heirs by descent, and free from any revocation, re-entry, or claim of forfeiture on the part of the grantor, except for non-payment of the rent.”
4.3. Under Portuguese law, the contract of ‘emphyteusis’ involved the transfer of beneficial ownership (possessory rights) by the owner of a property to another individual, subject to the latter’s obligation to pay an annual sum - referred to as the ‘emphyteutic’ pension or canon - to the former. This arrangement effectively meant that the Portuguese State, which then possessed eminent domain rights, conferred conditional ownership upon individuals within its administered territories, while retaining the right to receive annual ‘emphyteutic’ payments in recognition of its continuing title to the land.
4.4. Thereafter, Government Regulation No. 985, referred to as the Organic Structure of the Lands of Nagar Haveli or the ‘Organizacao Agraria’, was brought into force on 22.09.1919 (OA), to regulate the revenue admini
