In a remarkable journey through history, the Supreme Court of India recently delved into the 160-year-old colonial Portuguese Civil Code of 1867. Their mission: to determine the rightful ownership of land parcels in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, originally distributed by the Portuguese to local ‘Alvara’ (permit) holders for cultivation in 1923 and 1930.
A three-judge bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, delivered a judgment on Wednesday (September 24, 2025), emphasizing a crucial historical detail: the land initially granted by the Portuguese was of notoriously poor quality. It was so barren that even the cultivation of low-yield indigenous food grains like nagli, kodra, and varai proved economically unfeasible for the local farmers.
Despite the land’s meager value, it became the subject of a protracted legal battle. This dispute pitted the descendants of the original ‘Alvara’ holders, including Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar, against the State administration, represented by the Collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
The roots of this extensive legal struggle trace back to 1974, when the State administration, acting through its Collector, moved to revoke these Portuguese-era land grants. This action came years after Dadra and Nagar Haveli were liberated from Portuguese rule in 1954 and formally integrated into the Indian Union by the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act of 1961.
Justice Surya Kant, authoring the judgment, highlighted a profound irony: “What is perhaps most striking about this case is not merely that this court is called upon to adjudicate a dispute originating over half a century ago, but rather the deeper irony that, even after 78 years of Independence, this court remains engaged in resolving a controversy arising out of land rights conferred by colonial powers that once exploited this nation’s wealth and resources.” His words underscore the enduring legacy of colonialism on India’s legal landscape.
Ultimately, the apex court concluded that the Collector’s order from April 30, 1974, was not issued with malicious intent (‘mala fides’). It was determined that the order was not aimed at stripping the appellants (the descendants) of their rightful statutory benefits under the Land Reforms Regulations of 1971.
Consequently, the top court dismissed all appeals, finding them to be without merit.