Supreme Court Holds Special Agrarian Law Governs Rescission of Colonial-Era Grants; Collector’s Order Upheld

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a cluster of civil appeals arising from a common Bombay High Court judgment that challenged the rescission of land grants (Alvaras) in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The appeals concerned whether the Collector lawfully rescinded Portuguese-era grants on grounds of non‑cultivation and whether the High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts.

The Court summarized the principal holding: it treated the Organizacao Agraria (OA) as the governing special law for the Alvaras and held that the High Court did not transgress its jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent findings where legal principles were misapplied. The Court found no mala fide exercise of power by the Collector and rejected fresh pleas raised for the first time on appeal, including reliance on the 1917 Portuguese Land Code and Decree No. 27:135. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also noted that “there can be no estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its legislative, sovereign, or executive powers,” and reiterated the maxim cited in the judgment, “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,” in the context of parties’ responsibilities to press their rights.

Background The dispute originated from Alvara grants made between 1923 and 1930 under Portuguese administration, which conferred hereditary, transferable rights subject to cultivation conditions in Article 12 of the OA. The Collector issued orders rescinding several Alvaras in 1969 and again consolidated by an order dated 30.04.1974, after site inspections concluded the landholders had not fulfilled cultivation obligations. The appellants challenged rescission in a civil suit; the Trial Court (19.06.1978) upheld the plaintiffs and found condonation/waiver by the administration, and the First Appellate Court (08.06.1983) affirmed in part. The Bombay High Court, however, allowed the second appeals and set aside earlier decrees, holding that mere delay did not establish acquiescence and that the First Appellate Court had erred in law. On appeal to this Court, the key issues were whether the OA (Article 12) or the 1917 Portuguese law (Article 307) governed rescission, whether Decree No. 27:135 displaced Article 12, whether the High Court exceeded its powers under Section 100 CPC, and whether rescission was vitiated by waiver, acquiescence, delay or mala fides. The Supreme Court found that the OA was the lex specialis governing the matter, that the appellants had impermissibly raised fresh legal grounds at the appellate stage, and that the Collector’s reasoned order complied with statutory requirements and natural justice directions previously given by the High Court. The appeals were dismissed, the status‑quo order of 24.02.2006 was vacated, and the Court granted limited procedural relief: appellants who claimed non‑consideration for occupancy rights under the 1971 Land Reforms Regulation were given six weeks’ liberty to apply to the Collector; interlocutory applications relating to proposed acquisition by NHAI were left to be pursued in law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1145; Civil Appeal Nos. 1479 of 2006 (with Civil Appeals 1480–1489 of 2006 and 1181 of 2017) Case Title: Divyangnakumari Harisinh Parmar (Dead) and others …Appellants versus Union of India and others …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aryama Sundaram, Senior Counsel; Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Counsel; Mr. Shivaji Jadhav, Advocate on Record For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India

(Dated: Judgment delivered by a three‑judge bench on 24.09.2025 — appeals dismissed; liberty to apply to Collector preserved; no order as to costs.)