DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1303 · Decided: 24-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1303 : 2025 INSC 1145
Divyangnakumari Harisinh Parmar (Dead) and Others 
v. 
Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 1479 of 2006)
24 September 2025
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and  
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The following issues arise for determination in the instant appeals: 
(i) What is the true nature of the rights in the land granted to the 
Appellants; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering 
with and reversing the concurrent findings of the Courts below;  
(iii) Whether the recission of the grant on the ground of non-
cultivation under Article 12 of the OA could be vitiated on the ground 
of waiver, acquiescence, delay or condonation; (iv) Whether the 
order of the Collector dated 30.04.1974 is vitiated by mala fides, 
arbitrariness, or otherwise unsustainable in law.
Headnotes†
Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 – Organizacao Agraria – Arts.1, 7, 
8, 12, 16 – Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961 – Dadra 
and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulation, 1971 – Appellants’ 
land rights were conferred under the erstwhile Portuguese legal 
regime – Pursuant to Organizacao Agraria (OA), agricultural 
lands were thus granted on the basis of perpetual lease rights 
known as ‘Alvaras’ for indefinite periods of time, subject to 
the payment of a fixed assessment or ‘land revenue’ – The 
Appellants are descendants of original ‘Alvara’ holders – The 
territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli were liberated from 
Portuguese domination in 1954 – On 28.10.1969, the Collector, 
exercising powers under the OA, issued orders rescinding the 
grants made in favour of the Appellants’ predecessors and 
directed that the lands stand reverted to the Administration, 
free from all encumbrances – Writ Petitions – The High 
Court quashed the order of recission of contract passed by 
the Collector and remanded the matter back – The Collector 
by order dated 30.04.1974 directed the rescission of the 
* Author
1304
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
‘Alvaras’ for breach of the terms embodied in Art.12 – Civil 
Suit by the Appellants’ predecessors – The Trial Court held 
that each plaintiff therein was entitled to retain possession 
of the lands covered under their respective ‘Alvaras’ and that 
the Collector’s order dated 30.04.1974 was illegal and void – 
The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.06.1983 
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Trial 
Court – The High Court vide the impugned judgment allowed 
the second appeals and judgments of the courts below were 
held to be legally unsustainable – Correctness:
Held: i) The governing law for determining the nature and extent 
of the rights in the lands granted to the Appellants is the OA, and 
the inquiry must be confined to its provisions; ii) The High Court’s 
reversal of the concurrent findings of the courts below does not 
transgress the limits of its jurisdiction u/s.100 of the CPC; iii) The 
Appellants’ pleas of waiver, acquiescence, delay, impossibility, 
and condonation have no legal or factual basis, and none of 
these principles render the Collector’s order dated 30.04.1974 
unsustainable; and iv) The Collector’s order dated 30.04.1974 
was not tainted by mala fides and cannot be construed as having 
been passed with the intent to disentitle the Appellants from the 
statutory benefits under the 1971 Land Reforms Regulation – The 
findings of the High Court in the Impugned Judgment suffer from 
no infirmity, legal or factual, warranting interference. [Paras 95, 96]
Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 – Organizacao Agraria – Arts.1, 7, 
8, 12, 16 – Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961 – Decree 
No. 3602 Regimen for the grants of the lands of the State of 
India (1917 Law) – Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms 
Regulation, 1971 – The Appellants contend that the foundation 
for rescission, as recorded in the Collector’s order dated 
30.04.1974, could not have been Art.12 of the OA – Rather, 
they argue, the governing provision was Art.307 of the 1917 
Law – The Appellants’ alternative line of defence rests upon 
their reliance on Decree No. 27:135 dated 20.10.1936 – What 
is the true nature of the rights in the land granted to the 
Appellants:
Held: These assertions advanced by the Appellants find no trace 
in the pleadings before any of the courts below, be it the Trial 
Court, or in the subsequent appellate proceedings – Neither the 
issues framed, nor the written submissions filed, nor the oral 
[20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.