Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-001479-001479 – 2006 |
| Diary Number | 16451/2005 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the High Court’s judgment |
| Type of Law | Land grants under Portuguese regime; statutory interpretation; civil procedure (Section 100 CPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The OA is lex specialis governing rescission of Portuguese-era land grants, displacing any general law. Article 12 OA’s mandatory cultivation conditions cannot be waived or extinguished by delay or inaction, as waiver of public-interest statutes is impermissible. Mere inordinate delay does not constitute acquiescence; an appellate court may interfere under Section 100 CPC where concurrent findings of fact are perverse or rest on misapplication of law. The Collector’s reasoned order was valid and free of mala fides. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Portuguese Government granted perpetual “Alvaras” (emphyteutic leases) for agricultural cultivation (1923–1930). Post-1961 Indian administration surveyed and recorded holdings and assessed non-cultivation. Collector rescinded grants in 1969 and 1974 under Article 12 OA. Trial Court and District Judge upheld landholders’ claims on waiver/acquiescence; High Court set aside those orders for misapplication of law; appeals ensued to Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts in land-grant and Section 100 CPC appeals |
| Distinguishes | Judgment of the Overseas Council of Lisbon on delayed rescission |
| Follows | D.S. Thimmappa v. Siddaramakka; Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Waiver or acquiescence cannot be invoked to defeat mandatory statutory conditions imposed in public interest—State inaction or delay alone does not extinguish such rights.
- High Courts may interfere in second appeals under Section 100 CPC where concurrent findings of fact are perverse, rest on misapplication of law, or ignore mandatory provisions.
- Lex specialis rule: special statutes (here, Article 12 of the Organização Agrária) prevail over general enactments (e.g., Portuguese Civil Code).
- Fresh grounds or legal theories not raised at trial or first appeal cannot be entertained at the Supreme Court stage.
- Rescission orders under Article 12 OA need no independent proceedings; natural justice requires only a fair opportunity to be heard.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Organização Agrária (OA) is a special enactment governing “Alvara” grants; Article 12 OA’s mandatory cultivation tests and rescission mechanism prevail over general Portuguese land‐grant law.
- Appellants’ reliance on the Portuguese Civil Code (1917 Law) and Decree No. 27:135 was raised for the first time before Supreme Court and is inadmissible at this stage.
- Waiver requires voluntary relinquishment of a known right; public‐interest statutes cannot be waived by the Government—delay alone does not constitute waiver or acquiescence.
- Section 100 CPC confines High Court interference with concurrent findings to cases involving substantial questions of law, including perversity or wrong application of law to established facts.
- The Collector’s order dated 30.04.1974 was reasoned, complied with audi alteram partem, distinguished genuinely uncultivable lands, and validly rescinded “Alvaras” for breach of Article 12.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Landholders / Appellants):
- Rescission under Article 12 OA valid only within seven years; no default during that period.
- Absence of periodic inspections and enforcement amounts to waiver/acquiescence.
- Decree 27:135 (1936) bars rescission except for public expropriation or non-payment of rent.
- High Court misapplied Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating concurrent factual findings without raising a substantial question of law.
- 1971 Land Reforms Regulation abolished “Alvaras” and conferred occupancy rights; rescission on 30.04.1974 was mala fide, to deny statutory benefits.
Respondent (Union of India / Collector):
- Appellants’ new pleas on 1917 Law and Decree are belated and inadmissible.
- Mandatory cultivation conditions in Article 12 OA cannot be waived; no estoppel applies to public-interest statutes.
- High Court correctly interfered under Section 100 CPC, identifying misapplication of law and reliance on inadmissible authority.
- Article 12 OA is lex specialis; Article 307 of the 1917 Law does not govern OA’s rescission scheme.
- Section 57 of the 1971 Regulation (saving clause) preserves pre-existing proceedings, including the 1969–1974 rescission.
- Collector’s order was lawful, reasoned, and free of mala fides.
Factual Background
Portuguese authorities granted perpetual “Alvaras” to landholders in Dadra and Nagar Haveli (1923–1930) on condition of mandatory cultivation (Article 12 OA). After liberation and integration into India (1961), the Collector rescinded grants for alleged non-cultivation (1969 & 1974). The landholders sued; Trial Court and District Judge held the rescission void for waiver/acquiescence. The Bombay High Court set aside those findings for misapplication of law. The landholders appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Portuguese Civil Code, 1867: General law on emphyteusis contracts and rents.
- Organização Agrária (OA), 1919: Special law for Dadra & Nagar Haveli; Article 12 mandates phased cultivation; rescission without compensation; Article 16 deals with buildings; Article 146 supplements OA with 1917 Law only for omissions.
- Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulation, 1971: Abolished “Alvara” tenure; conferred occupancy rights with two-year cultivation cutoff; ceiling on landholding; Section 57 saving clause preserves pre-existing proceedings under OA.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed