OKCHAND PREMCHAND (D) TH.LRS. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY . — C.A. No. 1481/2006
Case under 3102_3Jj-land Laws, Agricultural Tenancy, Land Revenue : Three Judge Matter Section III. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010184162005
Filing Date
25-Aug-2005
Registration No
C.A. No. 1481/2006
Diary Number
18416/2005
Order Date
24-Sep-2025
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Data as of 30-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
OKCHAND PREMCHAND (D) TH.LRS.
Adv. SHIVAJI M. JADHAV
Respondent(s)
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY .
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-Sep-2025 | Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week |
| 22-Jul-2025 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 21-May-2025 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 19-May-2025 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 15-May-2025 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 1479/2006
Summary of C.A. No. 001481/2006 - OKCHAND PREMCHAND (D) TH.LRS. v. UNION OF INDIA Court's Decision The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the landholders, upholding the High Court's decision to rescind their land grants (Alvaras). The Court ruled that the Collector's order dated 30.04.1974 rescinding the grants for non-cultivation of land was valid and legally sustainable, rejecting all contentions of waiver, acquiescence, delay, and mala fides. Key Reasoning 1. Governing Law: The Organizacao Agraria (OA) - a special Portuguese land law specific to Dadra and Nagar Haveli - governs the Alvaras grants, not the general 1917 Law. Article 12 of the OA mandates rescission when cultivation conditions are breached. 2. No Waiver/Acquiescence: The Court held that waiver cannot apply to matters grounded in public interest. Since agricultural land grants serve public policy purposes, the State cannot waive enforcement rights through mere inaction or delay. 3. No Reasonable Time Limit: The OA prescribes no deadline for rescission, allowing action whenever non-cultivation is discovered. 4. High Court Jurisdiction: The High Court properly interfered with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC, as the lower courts' reliance on waiver principles was legally untenable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts