| Headnote |
Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) – Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) – Constitutional validity of – Held: The Amending Act was enacted and published after obtaining assent of the President of India, thus such Act is part of the agrarian reform – Therefore, the Amending Act is protected in terms of Art. 31A of the Constitution – The Amending Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 31A. Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) –Shamilat deh (common land) – Common land falling in s.2(g)(1) and (6) of the Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act – Classification of, into three categories – First category being shamilat deh recorded in ownership of Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation which vests unequivocally with the commencement of the Punjab and PEPSU Act – No dispute about land falling in the first category as held by the High Court in Hukam Singh and subsequently affirmed by Supreme Court in Malwinder Singh as being part of the agrarian reforms. Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) –Shamilat deh (common land) – Common land falling in s.2(g)(1) and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act – Classification of, into three categories – Second category being land for common purposes reserved during the process of consolidation by applying pro-rata cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not necessarily falling within the permissible ceiling limits under the land ceiling laws – Held: Land falling in the second category was held to be a part of the agrarian reforms protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat Singh being subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court – The land falling in second category i.e., land reserved for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling limit of the proprietor would vest with Panchayat – The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes – The Amending Act is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit Singh – Hence, s.2(g)(6) r/w s.4 of the Act, 1961 vests the land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village Panchayat. Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) –Shamilat deh (common land) – Common land falling in s.2(g)(1) and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act – Classification of, into three categories – Third category being common purposes land reserved by pro-rata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling laws, the management and control of which vests with the panchayat – Held: In respect of the third category, the land within the ceiling limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes and was found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh – In appeal, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh held that the proprietor is not entitled to compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat, and thus it was not a case of acquisition of land – Thus, in respect of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling limits, it is the management and control alone which would vest with the panchayat – However such vesting of management and control is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the present requirements but the future requirements as well – The Panchayat will not have title over the land but as part of management and control, the panchayat is at liberty to put the land for the use for the common purposes – Such common purposes as defined under s.2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 are interchangeable and also can be used for any other common purposes – Though the land vests with the Panchayat, but such land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit of village community – Even if any land reserved for common purposes is not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot be termed as unutilized land (i.e. Bachat land) open for purpose of repartition amongst the proprietors – Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use – Since ‘common purpose’ is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Land Laws – Municipalities – Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 – Whether if whole or part of the Panchayat area comes within the municipal limits, and the Panchayat ceases to exist, land would vest with the municipality and will not revert back to the proprietors – Held, No – s.7(4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions of the 1973 Municipal Act – However, both the statutes had undergone extensive changes after the insertion of Part IX and IX A in the Constitution empowering the third tier of the democratic set up – The Panchayati Raj Act contemplates vesting of property of Gram Panchayat with the municipality, whereas the Municipal Act takes into its ambit the properties which were vesting with Panchayat – The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest with the municipality – Thus, the word ‘whole’ appearing in s.7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits – Thus, if the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality – Such vesting is not a part of agrarian reforms but shall be on account of extension of municipal limits – When the municipal limits are extended, the residents of the Panchayat also became residents of the municipality – The common purposes of the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be utilized by the municipality – Therefore, such vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first time but transition of the land reserved for common purposes in the changed scenario when the land vest with the municipality – The argument of the proprietors that if whole of the Sabha area merges with the municipality, only then there can be vesting of land reserved for common purposes with the municipality is untenable – Such an argument would lead to anomalous results – The title, right and interest of the property cannot be held in abeyance – There has to be continued control and management over the land reserved for common purposes under the 1948 Act – Therefore, even if a part of Sabha area is merged into the municipality, the municipality will have control over the land so reserved for the erstwhile village community which will now form part of the urban area – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Land Laws – Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Held: The scope of the provisions under the 1985 Act and the 1961 Act are different and distinct. |
