Justice K. Vinod Chandran - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules Against Bypassing Agricultural Tenancy Act in Goa Land Dispute

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against Bypassing Agricultural Tenancy Act in Goa Land Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Administrative Tribunal rightly denied permission for a compromise between the Communidade of Tivim and private respondents. The proposed consent terms violated the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use Act, 1991, by attempting to confer ownership rights and permit non-agricultural use without following statutory procedures. The Court emphasized that such compromises cannot bypass legal frameworks or undermine tenancy rights. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the tenancy dispute to be adjudicated on merits by the Appellate Court. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the Communidade of Tivim, an agricultural association in Goa, which challenged the dismissal of its writ petition by the High Court of ...

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...