SC: No Fresh Claims Allowed at Appeal Stage in Land Dispute

Supreme Court Rules: No New Case Can Be Raised at Appeal Stage in Colonial-Era Land Dispute

Court says pleadings define the scope of justice; refuses to reopen decades-old Dadra and Nagar Haveli land case

Judges stress that delay or silence does not mean consent; colonial land grants cannot override Indian law

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi; September 26, 2025:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that no relief can be granted on a case not founded in the original pleadings, and courts cannot entertain an entirely new case at the appellate stage. The ruling came in the case of Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar & Others v. Union of India & Others (2025 INSC 1145), which revolved around a long-standing land dispute in Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The three-judge bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, dismissed the appeals filed by the descendants of landholders who had received property rights under Portuguese colonial law nearly a century ago.

Background of the Case

The disputed lands were originally granted between 1923 and 1930 by the Portuguese Government to the appellants’ ancestors.
These grants were made under the Portuguese system of “emphyteusis”, where land was given for cultivation in return for an annual fee.
In 1974, the Collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli rescinded these grants, sparking a legal battle that has lasted for decades.
The Bombay High Court had earlier ruled against the appellants, holding that delay in government action does not mean consent or waiver.

The appellants argued that the government’s long silence amounted to acquiescence (implied consent) and that their rights should be protected. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this claim.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Court made several important legal points that will guide future cases:

On Pleadings:
The Court said pleadings are the foundation of any case. They define the scope of the dispute and give both parties a fair chance to present evidence. Allowing new claims at the appellate stage would be unfair and disruptive.
On Delay and Consent:
The Court ruled that mere delay by authorities does not mean they have given up their rights. Silence or inaction cannot be treated as consent unless there is clear evidence of voluntary waiver.
On Appellate Powers:
Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), High Courts cannot interfere with findings of fact unless there is perversity, lack of evidence, or reliance on irrelevant factors. The Supreme Court upheld this principle.
On Colonial Legacy:
The Bench noted the irony that even after 78 years of independence, Indian courts are still resolving disputes rooted in colonial land grants. However, it clarified that this observation does not undermine the legitimacy of the appellants’ claims—it only highlights the historical complexity.
On Waiver and Acquiescence:
The Court explained that waiver must be voluntary and intentional. Delay alone cannot prove waiver. Similarly, acquiescence cannot be presumed without clear conduct showing voluntary surrender of rights.
On Repealed Laws:
The Court clarified that repeal of colonial laws does not erase actions already taken under them. Indian law, particularly the General Clauses Act, 1897, ensures continuity of proceedings even after repeal.

Lawyers Involved

For the Appellants: Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram, Gopal Subramaniam, and Advocate Shivaji Jadhav.
For the Respondents (Union of India): Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

Clarity on Pleadings: It reinforces that courts cannot go beyond the original pleadings. This ensures fairness and prevents last-minute surprises in litigation.
Colonial-Era Disputes: It highlights how colonial land grants continue to affect Indian courts, even decades after independence.
Limits on Appeals: It strengthens the principle that appellate courts cannot reopen settled facts unless there is a serious legal error.
Public Policy: It prevents misuse of delay or silence by authorities as a ground to claim ownership or rights.

Broader Implications

For Land Disputes: Many land disputes in India trace back to colonial or princely state grants. This judgment sets a precedent that such claims cannot be revived at a late stage without strong legal grounds.
For Governance: It protects the government from being forced into defending stale claims based on historical silence.
For Citizens: It reminds litigants that they must present all their claims and evidence at the earliest stage, not wait until appeals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeals in Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar v. Union of India is a strong reminder that justice must be based on pleadings, evidence, and law—not on belated claims or historical silence.

By refusing to reopen a case rooted in colonial land grants, the Court has reinforced the principle of legal certainty and fairness. The ruling will likely influence many similar disputes across India, especially those involving old land rights and colonial-era laws.