Article 300A - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the rescission of land grants for breach of mandatory cultivation conditions under the Portuguese-era Organic Structure. It ruled that the conditions, rooted in public policy, could not be waived or condoned by mere state inaction. The Court further held that new legal grounds cannot be raised at the appellate stage, confining its analysis to the original pleadings and the specific provisions of the agrarian law. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns land in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, originally granted by the Portuguese government between 1923 and 1930 under contracts known as ‘Alvaras’. These grants, based on the legal principle of ‘emphyteusis’, gave the holders inheritable and transferable rights subject to the mandatory condition of bringing the land und...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...

Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions

The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory before reducing the pension of a compulsorily retired employee below the full admissible amount. The Court emphasized that pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A and cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The word "may" in Regulation 33(1) does not grant discretion to reduce pension below two-thirds of the full amount but clarifies eligibility. The judgment clarified that clauses (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read harmoniously, and any reduction in pension requires prior Board consultation, rendering post-facto approval insufficient. The High Court's interpretatio...