Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Subegh Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-27471-2022; CWP-15980-2022 (O&M); CWP-15690-2022; CWP-15698-2022; CWP-15890-2022; CWP-15896-2022; CWP-15898-2022; CWP-16071-2022; CWP-16154-2022 and CWP-16157-2022
Decided On : 17-03-2023
The court addressed a batch of writ petitions challenging the executive instructions issued by the States of Haryana and Punjab for the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others'. The instructions aimed to vest ownership of Shamlat Deh lands in Gram Panchayats and Municipalities. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (1961 Act), the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (1948 Act), and the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Singh's case to determine the scope and import of the judgment and the correct understanding of the statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged the executive instructions issued by the States of Haryana and Punjab for the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others'. The instructions aimed to vest ownership of Shamlat Deh lands in Gram Panchayats and Municipalities.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the executive instructions issued by the States of Haryana and Punjab were contrary to the scheme of the statutes and quashed them. The court held that ownership of lands reserved for common purposes, whether utilized or unutilized, would vest in the Gram Panchayat or Municipalities. However, lands partitioned or redistributed among proprietors under the Consolidation Scheme would not vest in Gram Panchayats. The court also held that bona fide purchasers of lands would not be affected unless their sale deeds were set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Singh's case could be given retrospective effect to include lands that were not previously considered Shamlat Deh under the 1961 Act? 2. Whether the amendment to the 1961 Act in 2007, which inserted Section 5-B, could be applied retrospectively to void sale transactions that occurred prior to the amendment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Singh's case could be given retrospective effect only to the extent that it applied to lands that were reserved for common purposes and were under the management and control of Gram Panchayats under Section 23-A of the 1948 Act. The court held that the judgment could not be applied retrospectively to lands that had already been partitioned or redistributed among proprietors. 2. The court held that the amendment to the 1961 Act in 2007, which inserted Section 5-B, could not be applied retrospectively to void sale transactions that occurred prior to the amendment. The court held that Section 5-B could only be applied to lands that were actually Shamlat Deh and that the determination of whether a land was Shamlat Deh had to be made through proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the executive instructions issued by the States of Haryana and Punjab and directed the states to give effect to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Singh's case in accordance with the directions issued by the court.
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since all the writ petitions relate to common questions of law, therefore, the same are being disposed of through a common order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The writ petitioners belong to the States of Haryana as well as Punjab.
They are aggrieved by the Executive Instructions issued by the respective State Governments for the purpose of purported implementation of the Judgment dated 07.04.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in case titled as 'State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC) 1718'. Since, the States of Haryana and Punjab have issued their respective set of instructions, thus, it will be useful to reproduce them separately.
State of Haryana:-
3. The State of Haryana firstly issued instructions dated 21.06.2022, relevant part whereof reads as follows:-
'All the Deputy Commissioners in the State
Memo No DLR-7202 | Chandigarh. Dated-21-06-2022 |
Subject: Implementation of the Apex Court judgment dated 07.04.2022 pertaining to vesting of Shamlat Deh and Jumla Mushtarka Malkan in the Panchayat Deh or Municipal Bodies concerned.
On the subject cited above, it is brought to your kind notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.6990 of 2014 titled as The State of Haryana through Secretary to Government of Haryana versus Jai Singh & others and other connected civil appeals has given a detailed judgment dated 07.04.2022 arising primarily out of Jai Singh & ors versus State of Haryana. 2003(1) PIJ 429: 2003 SCC online P & 11 409 (FB) in short Jai Singh II and Suraj Bhan & ors versus State of Haryana & another. 2017(2) RCR (Civil) 934 P&II (FB). The judgment is available on the website of Supreme Court of India. ic. https://main.sci. gov. in/. Annexure I summarises the salient features of the judgment. From a detailed perusal of the shove Judgment dated 07.04.2022, there is imminent need to carry out the following actions by the officers of Revenue Department:-
1) Mutations shall be entered by halqa patwari of land recorded as Shamlat Deh. Shamlat Deh hasab rasad zare khewat or Shamlat Deh hasab rasad paimana malkiyat in the revenue records, i.e.. latest jamabandi or misil-haquial. ie., first jamahandi after revenue settlement or consolidation, as per section 2(g)(1) of the 1961 Act immediately in favour of the Panchayat Deh concerned, compared by the Field Kanungo and thereafter, sanctioned positively by the Assistant Collector 2 Grade i.e. Circle Revenue Officer concerned.
2) It is further made clear that any person can subsequently take recourse to section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 before the Collector, if falling in any of the exceptions mentioned from (i) to (ix) of the section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. It is worthwhile to mention here that exception (i) of the ibid section has been deleted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act. 2020 (Haryana Act No.30 of 2020) pertaining to river action, Further, exception (vii) was deleted by the Haryana Act no 18 of 1995 pertaining to 14 Bhojas of Morni.
3) In case of merger of any revenue estate in the municipal limit at any time. wherein previously panchayat was in existence, one mutation of Shamlat Deh lands as detailed above shall be entered and sanctioned in favour of Panchayat Deh and subsequent mutation entered & sanctioned in favour of concerned Municipal body.
4) Mutations shall also be made and sanctioned accordingly for lands described as Jumla Malkan or Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hagdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan or Mushtarka Malkan, which are created by making a prorata cut of land for common purposes during consolidation of holdings as described in Section 2(g)(6) of the Act of 1961. Entries shall also be made in the cultivator column of the Jamabandi, by writing Maqbuza Panchayat Deh/ Maqbuza Municipal Committee Council Corporation, and same shall be sanctioned by CRO concerned. These lands cannot be alienated or partitioned in any manner at any stage.
5)
The classification of lands as shamlat patti is upheld; civil courts lack jurisdiction over ownership disputes regarding shamlat deh lands under the Act.
The court reaffirmed that lands reserved for common purposes should not revert to proprietors unless formally reallocated, emphasizing established precedents in land management law.
The amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands Act was unconstitutional as it violated proprietary rights without compensating landowners, affirming prior jurisprudence that unutilized land ('bacha....
The Gram Panchayat is entitled to change the user of land under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and permitted the user of land by PWD (B&R) department for 'plantation purposes'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of the Collector under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to decide disputes related to the ownership of land, and ....
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
