Customary Practice – Bhondedar – Bhondedar’s right over a shamlatdeh land – Nature and extent – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Punjab Mujara Act, 1887 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 – In an earlier proceeding for declaration and occupancy rights before Asst. Collector against the Gram Panchayat, Defendant No.1 was held entitled to hereditary rights in view of the longstanding service of his ancestors as mujara (tenants) relating to the suit land-shamlatdeh land – Defendant No.1 sold the shamlatdeh land to appellants-Defendant nos.25 – Suit filed by Respondents (inhabitants of the village & biswedarsproprietors) for declaration, possession & injunction – Dismissed by Trial Court – First Appellate Court reversed the said order and decreed the Respondents’ suit, declaring the Defendant No.1 as only a bhondedar but not the owner of the shamlatdeh land and annulling the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants – Order upheld by High Court: Held: The term ‘bhondedar’ has no statutory or legislative definition – But over a period of time, the term is equated with limited grant of land for service to be rendered by the grantee – It is a customary practice in the Punjab region (present-day areas comprising largely in the states of Punjab & Haryana) – A bhondedar has only limited right and should he fail to carry out his assigned duties, even this limited right becomes unavailable – The very nature of the tenure(s) does not bestow upon the holder, any right to alienate the granted land – All alienations made by the limited holder of property, would be manifestly void because a bhondedar does not possess title or ownership right of the property granted to him, as a bhonda – Dfdt. No.1 held conditional and limited possessory rights as a bhondedar, subject to services being rendered towards the village community – Such limited right remained unaffected and unaltered as long as the bhondedar fulfilled their service obligations toward the village – However, the Dfdt. No.1 not only ceased to render the required services but also relocated to a different place soon after unauthorisedly selling the suit land to appellants – Consequently, the bhondedar can have no legitimate claim whatsoever, over the suit land – When the services were ceased to be rendered towards the management, maintenance and upkeep of the shamlatdeh land, the limited grant so made to the bhondedar, by the proprietors-biswedars, in lieu of such services, extinguished – High Court also found that the decision in the previous proceeding cannot extinguish the rights of the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat in the suit because the biswedars were unaware of the Asst. Collector’s order – As soon as they learnt of such decree in Dfdt. No.1’s favour against the Gram Panchayat, they filed Suit– High Court rightly held that the suit was filed within time – Bhondedar could not have transferred his limited possessory rights or alienated the said property to the Appellants who in turn, as transferees, could not have derived any legal right over the suit land either – High Court’s decision in favour of the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat consistent with the opinion of this Court. [Paras10, 14, 17, 20, 23, 24]
Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Inter-play of claims over shamlatdeh category land vis-à-vis the bhondedar, the Gram Panchayat and the proprietors of such land: Held: The ownership to such lands rested in proportion to other lands of the village – For instance, an individual owning some land in the village also possessed additional proprietary rights and interest over shamlatdeh lands – However, with the enactment of the 1961 Act, the nature of vesting of such lands with the village community was somewhat altered – While such lands owned by the proprietors came to be vested in the Gram Panchayat, the s.4 of the 1961 Act noted certain important exceptions – The existing rights, title or interest of persons, who though not entered as occupancy tenants in the revenue records are accorded a similar status by custom like a bhondedar, dholidar, etc. and those would not be affected by such vesting of lands in the Gram Panchayat. [Paras 15, 16]
Words and Phrases – ‘Bhondedar’ – Characteristic features: Held: A ‘bhondedar’ renders secular services towards the village community as well as the biswedars (proprietors) – He is granted a parcel of land rent-free, within a village by the biswedars in lieu of payment for services rendered, and a bhondedar can be ejected from such piece of land on failure to render assigned services or fulfil conditions of such grant. [Para 11] Words and Phrases – ‘bhonda’; ‘dholi’ – Discussed. [Para 10] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder Singh, [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28: (1985) 3 SCC 661; State of Haryana vs. Jai Singh & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 418 – referred to.
Sewa Ram vs. Udegir: 1921 SCC OnLine Lah 237 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.