Judicial Appointments Confirmed as Supreme Court, Kerala HC Deliver Key Rulings on Property Rights and Tax Law

New Delhi – In a significant week for the Indian judiciary, the Union government has confirmed the appointments of three permanent judges to the High Courts of Tripura and Madras, while landmark judgments from the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court have provided crucial clarity on historical property rights and the powers of tax authorities. These developments highlight the dynamic nature of judicial administration and the evolving interpretation of complex statutes.

The appointments, recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium and formalized by President Droupadi Murmu, underscore the constitutional process governing the judiciary. Meanwhile, the rulings offer vital precedents for legal practitioners in the realms of property and tax law, addressing decades-old disputes and contemporary procedural challenges.

---

Centre Notifies Permanent Judges for Tripura and Madras High Courts

The Union Ministry of Law and Justice, acting on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium, has notified the appointments of Justice Biswajit Palit as a Permanent Judge of the Tripura High Court, and Justices N. Senthilkumar and G. Arul Murugan as Permanent Judges of the Madras High Court.

The notifications, issued under the authority vested by Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, confirm the transition of these judges from their roles as Additional Judges. As one notification stated, “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices (i) N. Senthilkumar and (ii) G. Arul Murugan, Additional Judges of the Madras High Court to be Judges of that High Court.”

Justice Biswajit Palit’s confirmation is a noteworthy milestone for the Tripura judiciary. Having joined the Tripura Judicial Service in 2001, his career is marked by extensive service across seven of the state's eight judicial districts. His experience is not limited to the courtroom; he has held key administrative roles, including Member Secretary of the Tripura State Legal Services Authority and Law Secretary to the Government of Tripura. Promoted to the Selection Grade in February 2021, he was first elevated as an Additional Judge of the High Court on October 26, 2023. His permanent appointment, based on a Collegium resolution from September 15, 2025, solidifies the bench strength of the High Court.

The elevation of Justices Senthilkumar and Murugan in Madras follows a similar recommendation from the Collegium, reinforcing the established procedure for appointing High Court judges.

---

Kerala High Court Balances Revenue's Interest and Assessee's Rights in Capital Gains Dispute

In a nuanced decision with significant implications for tax litigation, the Kerala High Court has partially allowed a widow's plea for the release of funds from a Capital Gain Savings Account. The ruling, in Mrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer & State Bank of India , clarifies the scope of an Income Tax Officer's (ITO) power to block funds pending assessment.

Case Background

The petitioner, a 67-year-old widow, had deposited approximately ₹83 lakh into a Capital Gain Savings Account to claim exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after selling a gifted property. She intended to use the funds to construct a new residence. However, she financed the construction using borrowed funds from relatives and later sought to withdraw her deposited capital gains to repay these loans.

The ITO denied her request to close the account, citing her failure to file returns for the relevant year and her use of borrowed funds instead of the deposited amount within the stipulated three-year period. The department calculated a prima facie tax liability of around ₹16.2 lakh.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., navigating the intersection of statutory requirements and practical realities, made a critical observation regarding Section 54F. The court noted that the provision does not explicitly mandate that construction must be financed directly from the sale proceeds. "Section 54F does not prohibit such an exercise," the bench remarked, acknowledging the legal tenability of using borrowed funds first and later appropriating the capital gains.

However, the Court also recognized the ITO's legitimate interest in securing potential revenue. It held that the officer’s findings, though reached during a closure request rather than a formal assessment, were not baseless. The judgment distinguished these findings as prima facie and not a final determination of tax liability.

In a move to balance the competing interests, the High Court directed the ITO to permit the petitioner to withdraw the excess funds from her account after retaining an amount sufficient to cover the department's calculated tax liability. The court ordered the necessary orders for this partial release to be passed within one month. This decision provides immediate partial relief to the petitioner while protecting the revenue's claim, which remains subject to a formal assessment proceeding.

---

Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Dispute Over Portuguese-Era Land Grants

In a final verdict on a multi-generational legal battle, the Supreme Court has upheld the cancellation of Portuguese-era land grants in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The judgment in Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar & Others v. Union of India & Others affirms the administration's power to rescind grants when mandatory conditions are not met, even after decades of inaction.

Historical Context and Legal Arguments

The dispute centered on land parcels granted between 1923 and 1930 under Portuguese law, known as “Alvaras.” A key condition of these grants was the cultivation of the land. After the region's integration into India, the local administration cancelled the grants in 1974, alleging the lands remained uncultivated.

The heirs of the original grantees argued that the government's inaction for several decades amounted to an implied waiver of the cultivation condition. They also challenged the timing of the cancellation order, which was issued just before a new Land Reforms Regulation came into effect.

Supreme Court's Decisive Findings

The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, systematically dismantled the appellants' arguments. It found no credible evidence that the mandatory cultivation benchmarks had ever been met. Crucially, the Court noted that the governing Portuguese regulations, the “Organizacao Agraria,” permitted cancellation “without any independent proceeding” if cultivation targets were breached.

Addressing the argument of waiver, the Court delivered a strong statement on public policy. “Mandatory conditions rooted in public interest cannot be waived by mere inaction,” the bench observed, reinforcing a critical legal principle that prevents administrative lethargy from extinguishing state rights tied to public welfare.

The Court also dismissed as “belated and impermissible” new arguments raised for the first time at the apex court level. By upholding the Bombay High Court's 2005 decision, the Supreme Court has brought a conclusive end to the 50-year-old dispute, validating the 1974 rescission order and solidifying the administration's legal standing.