SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Balbhadur Singh (Deceased) through LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 22738 of 2016
Decided On : 19-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Anupam Gupta, Sukhpal Singh, Saurabh Bajaj, Vikram Singh, Sumitra, Maninder Singh, Ankur Mittal, Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Saurabh Mago, Kushaldeep Kaur, Shivam Garg, Amrik Singh, Naresh Kaushik.

The omission of provisions related to shamlat deh in the Punjab Village Common Lands Act is unconstitutional, infringing on riparian owners' property rights without due compensation.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 2(g)(i) - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Section 42-A - Constitutionality of notifications challenged - Notification omitting provisions related to shamlat deh due to river action deemed ultra vires the Constitution, impacting rights of proprietors - Amendments should only have prospective effect, not retrospective - Petitioners are entitled to claim ownership over lands affected by river action. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 56)

(B) Property Rights - Constitutional mandate of protection against arbitrary expropriation requires compensation - Deletions from statutory provisions infringe on individual rights of riparian owners and impede their entitlement to land accreted due to river action. (Paras 39, 56)

(C) Legal Principles - Riparian owners retain title to land subject to alluvion deposits; ownership changes with river course alterations - Necessity for regulatory updates by revenue departments to safeguard landowner rights. (Paras 50, 54)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged notifications that omitted provisions in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, affecting their claims as proprietors over lands in villages subjected to river action. They needed clarification on their rights regarding disputed lands, being in successive ownership since 1881.

Findings of Court:
Court ruled the omissions unconstitutional, preserving rights of proprietors and requiring the updating of legislative context regarding riverine lands.

Issues: The primary issue revolves around the constitutional validity of notification amendments affecting property rights under evolving environmental conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that riparian ownership extends to lands affected by natural changes in rivers, underscoring the need for legislative protection of property rights against arbitrary omissions in statutory provisions.

Result: The petitions were allowed, with the court declaring the amendments as ultra vires.

Table of Content
1. common challenge to notification's constitutionality (Para 1 , 2)
2. ownership claims regarding village land history (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8)
3. quashing notification regarding act of 1961 (Para 6 , 7)
4. eviction of proprietors based on limited ownership (Para 9 , 10)
5. abandoning challenge to section 42-a constitutionality (Para 11 , 12)
6. discussion on the effects of legislative amendments (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. challenges based on river action and ownership disputes (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. accretion rights and legal principles (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. riparian owner rights over river changes (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
10. implications of ownership in riverine lands (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
11. general principles on land ownership and water boundaries (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
12. right to ownership clarified through judgments (Para 32 , 33)
13. state's arguments and challenges to petitioner's claims (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
14. constitutionality of statutory provisions discussed (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
15. rights of riparian owners regarding river actions (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
16. legal determinations on ownership rights reinforced (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
17. legislature's overreach discussed in context of river action (Para 48 , 49)
18. court's directives on revenue administration and land rights (Para 50 , 52 , 53)
19. final judgment on the case outcomes and orders (Para 54 , 55)
20. final decisions must adhere to constitutional protections regarding land. (Para 56)

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions (supra) make a common challenge to the constitutionality of the impugned notification(s), wherebys it omitted Section 2(g)(i), as earlier thereto became carried in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’), therefore, all the writ petitions (supra) are liable for being decided through a common verdict.

2. In CWP-22738-2016, the petitioners seek the quashing of the notification dated 23.7.2007 issued by the Government of Punjab, enacting the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 2007 (Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007) (for short ‘the Act of 2007’), vide which Section 4 2 -A of the Act has been inserted in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act of 1948’), and also seek the quashing of the notification dated 27.4.1976. The petitioners also seek the quashing of the order dated 28.12.2015 whereby the claim of the petitioners with regard to the makings of changes in the revenue record regarding their ownership, thus has been dismissed.

3. In the petition (supra), it is averred that the instant petition pertains to land measuring 755 kanals 19 marlas situated at village Jodhwal, Sub Tehsil Shri Machhiwara Sahib, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. It is further averred therein that village Jodhwal was set up by a person namely Udaisi, in the name of his father Jodh. The said Udaisi was recorded as owner of land measuring 755 kanals 19 marlas of village Jodhwal, as per Kursinama of village Jodhwal. The said Kursinama is also known as Wajibul- Arz of the said village. It is futher averred in the petition (supra), that the said wajib-ul-arz was prepared in the year 1881-82. It is also averred thereins, that in the column of ownership of jamabandi for the year 1912-13, there exists an entry of shamlat deh hasab paimana haquiat, and, in the jamabandis for the year 1916-17 and for the year 1944-45, mutation qua gift deeds, mortgage and inheritance was incoroporated. It is further averred thereins, that in the year 1960-61, consolidation of the village Jodhwal took place and in missal hakiat ownership of 511 share was incorporated in sajranasab of the year 1960-61, and, the ownership of the proprietors of the village was kept intact. It is further averred therein that after consolidation, thus the jamabandi was prepared in the year 1961-62, whereins, the revenue department concerned wrongly incorporated the ent

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top