DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) vs UNION OF INDIA — C.A. No. 1479/2006
Case under 3102_3Jj-land Laws, Agricultural Tenancy, Land Revenue : Three Judge Matter Section III. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010164512005
Filing Date
03-Aug-2005
Registration No
C.A. No. 1479/2006
Diary Number
16451/2005
Order Date
24-Sep-2025
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 1145
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Data as of 29-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD)
Adv. SHIVAJI M. JADHAV[P-1]
Respondent(s)
UNION OF INDIA
Adv. SHREEKANT NEELAPPA TERDAL[R-2] DEVENDRA SINGH MEHRA SHAMIK SHIRISHBHAI SANJANWALA[R-16] SMARHAR SINGH[R-15] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-1] SHREEKANT NEELAPPA TERDAL[R-3]
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
Summary of C.A. No. 001479/2006: Divyangnakumari Harisinh Parmar v. Union of India Court Decision The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Collector's 1974 order rescinding agricultural land grants ('Alvaras') in Dadra and Nagar Haveli was valid. The Court found no merit in the appellants' pleas of waiver, acquiescence, delay, or condonation, and confirmed that mandatory cultivation conditions under the Portuguese-era Organic Agrarian Regulation (OA) could be enforced decades later without violating any statutory principles. Key Holdings Nature of Rights: Land grants ('Alvaras') conferred under Portuguese law constituted conditional occupancy rights subject to mandatory cultivation requirements—transferable and heritable but forfeitable upon non-compliance with Article 12 of the OA. Waiver Doctrine Inapplicable: Statutory obligations rooted in public interest (agricultural development) cannot be waived by government inaction or delay. The Court emphasized that government waiver requires intentional, voluntary relinquishment of known rights—mere delay cannot constitute waiver. Procedural Regularity: The High Court properly exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in reversing concurrent findings, as the lower courts had misapplied settled law regarding waiver and acquiescence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts