1994 Supreme(P&H) 65
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali, J.
Gram Panchayat
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 1478 of 1986,
Decided On : JANUARY 13, 1994
The Punjab Village Common Land Acquisition Act, 1953 is a law relating to agrarian reform and therefore immune from challenge under Article 31-A of the Constitution.
Headnote:
SHAMILAT DEH LAND - PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 3 - TRANSFER OF SHAMILAT DEH LAND TO REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT - VALIDITY - HELD, TRANSFER IS INVALID.
Fact of the Case:
Gram Panchayat of village Kotian challenged the transfer of shamlat deh land to the Central Government and the subsequent mutation of the land in favor of the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of shamlat deh land to the Central Government was invalid as the Punjab Village Common Land Acquisition Act, 1953, which vested all shamilat deh lands in the village Panchayat, was a law relating to agrarian reform and therefore immune from challenge under Article 31-A of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the transfer of shamlat deh land to the Central Government was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors., which held that shamilat deh lands are a distinctive and characteristic feature of village common land and cannot be disposed of by a majority of the co-sharers.
Final Decision: The court set aside the mutation order transferring the shamilat deh land to the Central Government.
V.K.Bali, J.
1. Gram Panchayat village Kotian, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, through its Sarpanch has filed the present petition under Articles 226-227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order passed by the Tehsildar (Sales) Ambala, and the proceedings taken by him for transferring the shamlat deh land of village Kotian measuring 1738-B 19-B in favour of the Central Government as also order passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ambala, sanctioning mutations of the above mentioned land in favour of the Central Government, During the penedency of this writ various Civil Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by both the parties, but this order of mine shall dispose of the prayer contained in the writ regarding transfer of the land to the Rehabilitation Department, which admittedly, was recorded as Shamlat deh. In so far as the relief indicating above is concerned, .the matter has been clinched in favour of petitioner by the Supreme court by an authoritative pronouncement in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors., 1986 R.L.R. 73. This is how the matter was dealt with by the apex Court:-
"In Rattigans Digest of Customary law in the Punjab in the introduction of Chapter X (village common land) it is noted that within the territorial limits of every village some portion of the uncultivated waste lands are reserved for purposes of common pasture, for assemblies of people for the tethering of the village cattle, and the possible extension of the village dwellings and that lands so reserved arc jealously guarded as the common property of the original body of settlers who founded the village or their descendants, and occasionally also those who assisted the settlers in clearing the waste and bringing it under cultivation are recognised as having a share in these reserved plots. It was further noticed "Even in villages which have adopted separate ownership as to the cultivated area, some such plots are usually reserved as village common, and in pattidar villages, it is not unusual to find certain portions of the waste reserved for the common use of the proprietors of each patti and other portions for common village purposes. The former is designated as Shamlat patti and the latter shamlat deh". It was said "As a general rule, only proprietors of the village (Malkan Deh) as distinguished from proprietors of their own holdings (malikan Makbuza Khud) are entitled to share in the shamilat deh". While it appears to have been laid down that the right to share in the village common land is an incident attaching to the ownership of agricultural land in the village, and that ordinarily those persons who hold land on which revenue assessed and who are co-sharers in the khewat are entitled to a share in proportion to the revenue paid by them. (See Malik Mohammad Sher Khan v. Ghulam Mohammad, I.L.R. 13 Lahore 92, it also appears to be settled law in Punjab that the rights of a proprietor in the shamilat are not a mere accessory to the land held by him and therefore an alienation of the latter does not ipso facto confer any rights in the former to the alienee, (vide Rehman v. Sai, I.L.R. 9 Lahore 501, and the cases noted therein). Further according to Rattigans Digest, "In the absence of custom none of the proprietors can do anything which alters the condition of the joint property without the consent of all the co-sharers" (Article 225). "Nor can any individual proprietor plant or cut trees on the common land, nor sink a well, nor appropriate houses built for common purpose except with such consent" (Article 226). "Nor in the absence of custom can the will of the majority of a village community prevail against that of the minority when the question is one as to the disposal of the common property in such a way as to preclude all use of it by the owners". (Article 227). Thus, it is seen that Shamilat Deh or village common land has certain dist