Back
2011 (1) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, JJ.
Jagpal Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1132 /2011 @ SLP(C) No.3109/2011
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19869 of 2010)
Decided on : 28-1-2011
1972(1) SCC 521 – Relied upon
(b) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Section 7 – Common land – Unauthorised occupation – Regularisation – Not permissible – Mere subsistence of such unauthorised occupation for many years is no ground for regularisation. (Para 13)
(1999) 6 SCC 464; (2004) 8 SCC 733 – Relied upon
(c) Land Laws – Common Land – Permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money – Illegal, should be ignored. (Para 15)
(d) Land Laws – Common Land – Land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. (Para 16)
AIR 2001 SC 3215 – Relied upon
2005(4) CTC 1 (Madras) – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
1. The appellants have trespassed and unauthorisedly occupied a village pond by filling it up and making constructions thereon.
2. The Gram Panchayat filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants stating that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Toba i.e. a village pond. The villagers have been using the same, since drain water of the village falls into the pond, and it is used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing.
3. Instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized occupants, the Collector, Patiala held that it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover the cost of the land as per the Collector’s rates from the respondents (appellants herein). Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants herein) have spent huge money on constructing houses on the said land.
4. Some persons then appealed to the learned Commissioner against the said order of the Collector and this appeal was allowed.
5. Against the order of the learned Commissioner a Writ Petition was filed which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Allotting common Gram Sabha lands like ponds or regularizing such allotments is not permissible.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Allotting or regularizing common village lands such as ponds or other community lands is not permissible (!) (!) (!) .
Rights of the community over common lands are preserved even if the land is vested in the government; such rights are not automatically extinguished by legal vesting (!) (!) .
Encroachment of common lands, especially by unauthorized occupants, cannot be justified by long-standing occupation or expenditure on constructions (!) (!) .
Regularization of unauthorized occupation of Gram Sabha land, including land recorded as a pond, is illegal and should be ignored (!) (!) .
Any government orders or schemes permitting the allotment or regularization of Gram Sabha land to private individuals or enterprises are illegal and should be disregarded (!) .
Land recorded as a pond or water body must not be allotted for construction or any similar purposes, as these are essential for the village’s water harvesting and ecological balance (!) (!) (!) .
The illegal occupation of common lands, especially through collusion with officials or misuse of muscle/money power, must be condemned and rectified by eviction (!) (!) .
Authorities are directed to prepare and implement schemes for the eviction of illegal occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat lands, with a focus on prompt action and without condoning illegal acts based on duration or expenditure incurred (!) .
Regularization should only be considered in exceptional cases, such as leases granted under specific government notifications for landless laborers or public utility establishments (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of protecting community rights and maintaining the public utility character of common village lands for the benefit of the villagers (!) (!) (!) .
The order mandates the Chief Secretaries of all states and union territories to ensure strict and prompt implementation of these directions, with periodic reporting to the court (!) (!) .
The case will be periodically reviewed by the court to monitor compliance with these directives (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or a specific legal analysis.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc., depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.
4. The protection of commons rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya vs. Paladuge Anjayya,1 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court observed :
“It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of the community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3) of the Estates Abolition Act.”
5. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.
6. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.5.2010. By that judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 10.2.2010.
7. It is undisputed that the appellants herein are neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question which is recorded as a pond situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District Patiala. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310, Khasra No. 369 (84-4) in the said village. They appear to have filled in the village pond and made constructions thereon.
8. The Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants herein who had unauthorizedly occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition the Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir alleged that the land in question belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Rohar as is clear fr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
