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
| 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
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.
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 affirmed that lands classified as Shamlat Deh cannot be claimed for exclusive ownership without sufficient evidence of independent cultivation prior to 1950.
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 court affirmed the authority of the Gram Panchayat to auction disputed land, ruling that the petitioner's claims of ownership were undermined by his own leasing actions and lack of evidence.
Section 14 of RSIR Act, 2016 provides for public notice of draft Master Development Plan and invitation of objections from public including suggestions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.