Kolkata, Sept 24 – In a lamentable reflection on the enduring legacy of colonial rule, the Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, has expressed concerns over the judiciary’s tedious and continued involvement with land disputes originating from colonial-era grants–long after the country gained its independence.
A Bench including Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh took notice of the fact throughout the dismissal of multiple appeals filed by descendants of Portuguese-era land grantees in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, challenging the rescission of agricultural concessions by the Collector in 1974.
“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,” the Bench noted, “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.”
The Case in Focus
The dispute revolved around “Alavaras” — perpetual land leases granted by the Portuguese administration between 1923 and 1930. The leases were conditional, and they required cultivators to bring the land under agricultural use in exchange for annual levies.
After the liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli back in 1954 and their formal integration into India in 1961, there was a survey done by the Indian administration. This survey recorded the lands in the revenue registers of India.
However, in 1974, the collector rescinded the Alavaras under Article 12 of the Organizacao Agraria (OA) of 1919, citing non-cultivation. This decision set off a legal battle spanning five decades, showing the complex and tedious nature of legal services in India.
A Timeline of Litigation
● 1978: The trial court ruled in favor of the Portuguese landholders. The court accepted that the landholders either waived or condoned the requirement for cultivation.
● 1983: The district appellate court upheld this view, stating that a continued state of inaction amounted to acquiescence.
● 2005: The Bombay High Court reversed the lower courts’ findings. It emphasized that the statutory obligations cannot be waived; the court also stated that the prolonged delay does not stand for consent.
However, the High Court’s decision reinstated the rescission orders by the Collector and led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram and Gopal Subramanium, who appeared for the appellants, argued that:
● Article 12 applied only during the first seven years of the grant.
● The land was not fertile, and strong efforts could only help grow grass, but nothing else.
● The Portuguese administration had accepted revenue, implying a waiver.
● A 1936 decree rendered such grants “inalienable,” allowing annulment only for public utility or non-payment.
● The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-evaluating facts without a substantial question of law.
Representing the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati defended the Collector’s decision, saying that:
● Article 12 imposed a binding obligation to cultivate the land.
● The appellants’ reliance on Portuguese statutes was misplaced and raised too late in the proceedings.
● Public policy and statutory mandates cannot be waived.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Court sided with the government, dismissing the appeals and reinforcing the primacy of statutory obligations.
“Article 12, being the operative and special provision, unequivocally provided that no independent proceeding was required for the rescission of a concession once the stipulated conditions stand breached,” the judgment stated.
“Mandatory statutory requirements, particularly those grounded in public policy, cannot be waived by any individual or authority. Inaction does not translate into acquiescence,” the Bench added.
The Court also provides clarification on the OA (original application), being a special law for Dadra and Nagar Haveli, which overrides general Portuguese land laws.
Share:
Share on
×