The Supreme Court has held that the plea of estoppel cannot be invoked against the Government when it exercises its legislative, sovereign, or executive powers.

“When pressed against the Government, the plea of waiver faces an especially high threshold and rarely succeeds,” the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N.K. Singh observed.

The Court agreed with the Bombay High Court, which had noted:

“There can be no question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of legislative, sovereign, or executive powers. To establish waiver against the Government, it must be shown that there was intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Mere delay or inaction by the Government cannot be treated as acquiescence.”

The Court emphasized that acquiescence cannot be presumed simply due to the passage of time; there must be clear and unequivocal conduct amounting to voluntary abandonment of a known right.

These observations arose in the context of land allotments in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, where allottees argued that their Alwara lands could not be forfeited after a long period despite failure to cultivate.

The Supreme Court upheld the Collector’s 1974 order, which rescinded the Alvaras (land concessions) granted under Portuguese-era land grants, on account of breach of conditions. The Court noted that the statutory cultivation obligations attached to these grants cannot be waived or condoned.

“The grants were conditional tenures, and failure to fulfill the conditions disentitles the holders from claiming compensation,” the Court held.

The decision dismissed the allottees’ pleas, affirming that the Government’s sovereign rights and conditional land grants cannot be overridden by claims of delay or estoppel.

Case Title: DIVYAGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., C.A. No. 1479/2006 (and connected cases)