The State of Haryana through Secretary to Government of Haryana vs Jai Singh & Ors.

Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) –Shamilat deh (common land) – Common land falling in s.2(g)(1) and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act – Classification of, into three categories – Second category being land for common purposes reserved during the process of consolidation by applying pro-rata cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not necessarily falling within the permissible ceiling limits under the land ceiling laws – Held: Land falling in the second category was held to be a part of the agrarian reforms protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat Singh being subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court – The land falling in second category i.e., land reserved for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling limit of the proprietor would vest with Panchayat – The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes – The Amending Act is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit Singh – Hence, s.2(g)(6) r/w s.4 of the Act, 1961 vests the land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village Panchayat.

Land Laws – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) –Shamilat deh (common land) – Common land falling in s.2(g)(1) and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act – Classification of, into three categories – Third category being common purposes land reserved by pro-rata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling laws, the management and control of which vests with the panchayat – Held: In respect of the third category, the land within the ceiling limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes and was found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh – In appeal, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh held that the proprietor is not entitled to compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat, and thus it was not a case of acquisition of land – Thus, in respect of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling limits, it is the management and control alone which would vest with the panchayat – However such vesting of management and control is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the present requirements but the future requirements as well – The Panchayat will not have title over the land but as part of management and control, the panchayat is at liberty to put the land for the use for the common purposes – Such common purposes as defined under s.2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 are interchangeable and also can be used for any other common purposes – Though the land vests with the Panchayat, but such land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit of village community – Even if any land reserved for common purposes is not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot be termed as unutilized land (i.e. Bachat land) open for purpose of repartition amongst the proprietors – Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use – Since ‘common purpose’ is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

Land Laws – Municipalities – Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 – Whether if whole or part of the Panchayat area comes within the municipal limits, and the Panchayat ceases to exist, land would vest with the municipality and will not revert back to the proprietors – Held, No – s.7(4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions of the 1973 Municipal Act – However, both the statutes had undergone extensive changes after the insertion of Part IX and IX A in the Constitution empowering the third tier of the democratic set up – The Panchayati Raj Act contemplates vesting of property of Gram Panchayat with the municipality, whereas the Municipal Act takes into its ambit the properties which were vesting with Panchayat – The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest with the municipality – Thus, the word ‘whole’ appearing in s.7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits – Thus, if the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality – Such vesting is not a part of agrarian reforms but shall be on account of extension of municipal limits – When the municipal limits are extended, the residents of the Panchayat also became residents of the municipality – The common purposes of the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be utilized by the municipality – Therefore, such vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first time but transition of the land reserved for common purposes in the changed scenario when the land vest with the municipality – The argument of the proprietors that if whole of the Sabha area merges with the municipality, only then there can be vesting of land reserved for common purposes with the municipality is untenable – Such an argument would lead to anomalous results – The title, right and interest of the property cannot be held in abeyance – There has to be continued control and management over the land reserved for common purposes under the 1948 Act – Therefore, even if a part of Sabha area is merged into the municipality, the municipality will have control over the land so reserved for the erstwhile village community which will now form part of the urban area – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

Land Laws – Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Held: The scope of the provisions under the 1985 Act and the 1961 Act are different and distinct. Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD : 1. A reading of the previous judgments and the history of the shamilat deh (common land) in the State of Punjab, including State of Haryana, shows that the common land for the purposes of the present appeals falling in Section 2(g)(1) and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act can be broadly classified into three categories: (i) shamilat deh recorded in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation which vests unequivocally with the commencement of the Punjab and PEPSU Act. (ii) land for common purposes reserved during the process of consolidation by applying pro-rata cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not necessarily falling within the permissible ceiling limits under the land ceiling laws. (iii) common purposes land reserved by prorata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling laws, the management and control of which vests with the panchayat. [Para 43][941-D-F]

2. There is no dispute about the land falling in the first category as held by the High Court in Hukam Singh and subsequently affirmed by this Court in Malwinder Singh as being part of the agrarian reforms. [Para 44][941-G]

3.1. The land falling in the second category was held to be a part of the agrarian reforms protected by Article 31A of the Constitution by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat Singh being subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. [Para 46][942-B-C]

3.2. The land falling in second category i.e., land reserved for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling limit of the proprietor would vest with Panchayat. The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes. The Amending Act is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit Singh. Hence, Section 2(g)(6) read with Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 vests the land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village Panchayat. [Para 48][945-D-F]

4.1. In respect of the third category, the land within the ceiling limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes and was found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh. In appeal, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the proprietor is not entitled to compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat. It was thus held that it was not a case of acquisition of land. [Paras

59 and 61][950-B-C; 952-G-H]

4.2. In respect of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling limits, it is the management and control alone which would vest with the panchayat. The management and control include leasing of land and use of the land by nonproprietors, Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes etc. which is for the benefit of the village community. Therefore, vesting under Section 4 would be limited to management and control. For the land taken from the proprietors by applying pro-rata cut from the permissible ceiling limits of the proprietors, management and control alone vests with the Panchayat but such vesting of management and control is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the present requirements but the future requirements as well. Such land would not be available for sale so as to confer title on the purchaser in view of the fact that the Panchayat is not the full owner of the land but while exercising control and management, it is duty bound to safeguard the land for the benefit of the village community. [Para 63][955-E-H; 956-A]

4.3. The Panchayat will not have title over the land but as part of management and control, the panchayat is at liberty to put the land for the use for the common purposes. Such common purposes as defined under Section 2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 are interchangeable and also can be used for any other common purposes. Common purposes are ever evolving, they are not fixed in time. With the change in time and expectations of the village community, common purposes have to be given wider meaning in view of the object of such reservation of land. Therefore, though the panchayat has management and control in respect of the land which was carved out from the land falling within the ceiling limits, the panchayat would have complete control over the said part of the land. The word ‘vesting’ appearing in Section 4 has to be read down to mean that management and control of such land alone would vest in the panchayat. [Para 64][956-B-D]

4.4. Though the land vests with the Panchayat, but such land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit of village community. Such benefits to the village community is not limited to traditional benefits of the village community i.e., land for grazing of cattle, dumping of dead animals, schools and hospitals but also the activities which would be required in future, keeping in view the modernization of the village economy which will ultimately for the benefit of the village community. [Para 66][956-H; 957-A-B]

4.5. It cannot be said that the land which has been cultivated by the proprietors on pro-rata cut and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose, commonly called as Bachat land, shall not vest with the Gram Panchayat. The land reserved for common purposes was reserved for the requirement of village community in praesenti and in future. If the land has not been put to use for any common purpose soon after the consolidation and/or thereafter, it cannot be said to be a Bachat land. The land mass is not going to increase but the requirement of the people and the expectations of the village community is ever expanding. Therefore, even if any land reserved for common purposes is not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot be termed as a Bachat land open for the purpose of repartition amongst the proprietors. [Para 68][957-C-F]

4.6. The land reserved for common purposes cannot be repartitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use. Since ‘common purpose’ is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution. [Para 84][967-H; 968-A-B]

5.1. Section 7(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. However, both the statutes had undergone extensive changes after the insertion of Part IX and IX A in the Constitution empowering the third tier of the democratic set up. The Panchayati Raj Act contemplates vesting of property of Gram Panchayat with the municipality., whereas the Municipal Act takes into its ambit the properties which were vesting with Panchayat. The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest with the municipality. Thus, the word ‘whole’ appearing in Section 7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits. [Para 103][980-G; 981A-B;]

5.2. If the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality. Such vesting is not a part of agrarian reforms but shall be on account of extension of municipal limits. When the municipal limits are extended, the residents of the Panchayat also became residents of the municipality. The common purposes of the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be utilized by the municipality. Therefore, such vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first time but transition of the land reserved for common purposes in the changed scenario when the land vest with the municipality. [Para 104][981-B-D]

5.3. The argument of the proprietors that if whole of the Sabha area merges with the municipality, only then there can be vesting of land reserved for common purposes with the municipality is untenable. Such an argument would lead to anomalous results. The title, right and interest of the property cannot be held in abeyance. There has to be continued control and management over the land reserved for common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Therefore, even if a part of Sabha area is merged into the municipality, the municipality will have control over the land so reserved for the erstwhile village community which will now form part of the urban area. [Para 105][981-E-F]

5.4. In respect of the land forming part of permissible limits of the proprietor under the land ceiling laws, the management and control vest with the Panchayat. Neither the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 nor the 1948 Act contemplates redistribution of land to the proprietors. It is an irrevocable act which cannot be undone. Therefore, once land vest with the Panchayat, it can be used for common purposes of the community and will never revert back to the proprietors. [Para 106][982-A-C]

6. The scope of the two provisions under the Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985 and the 1961 Act are different and distinct. Under the 1985 Act, the Gram Panchayat could seek eviction from unauthorized occupants, the management and control as of the land reserved for common purposes whereof vested in the Gram Panchayat in a summary way where the possession of the occupant was unauthorized. But if there is dispute in respect of the nature of occupation by the occupant or by the panchayat, procedure under the 1961 Act alone can be resorted to as Section 13A of the 1961 Act confers power upon the Collector to decide the question of right, title or interest in any land or immoveable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat. Therefore, in case of a dispute about the right, title or interest in any land for or on behalf of any person, the remedy under the 1961 Act alone can be exercised. This will include right, title or interest in all the three categories of land i.e., shamilat deh owned by panchayat, shamilat land vested in terms of 1948 Act falling in second category and the land, the management and control whereof is vested with the panchayat, land being within the permissible limits of the proprietor, the management and control of which vest with the panchayat. [Para 107][982-C-F]

7. Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the Amending Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity. The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilized by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. [Para 108][982-F-G] Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 632 : [1965] 1 SCR 82; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 856 : [1967] 2 SCR 143; Atma Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 519 : [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 748; Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala AIR 1960 SC 1080 : [1960]

3 SCR 887; Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 927 : [1967] 2 SCR 165; State of Haryana v. Karnal Co-op. Farmers’ Society Limited (1993) 2 SCC 363 : [1993] 2 SCR 193; Gram

Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh, (1985) 3 SCC 661 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28; Sukhdev Singh v. Gram Sabha Bari khad (1977) 2 SCC 518 : [1977] 2 SCR 862; Mahant Sankarshan Ramanuja Das Goswami, etc. v. State of Orissa and another AIR 1967 SC 59 : [1962] 3 SCR 250; Shish Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 84 : [2000]

3 SCR 1122; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000)

6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; V. M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000)

5 SCC 373 : [2000] 2 SCR 1169; S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N. (2002) 8 SCC 361 : [2002]

2 Suppl. SCR 498; Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India and another (2019) 20 SCC 705 : [2019] 4 SCR 222; Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. M/s. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. AIR 1958 SC 868 : [1959] SCR 713 ; Notified Area Committee & Anr. v. Des Raj & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 317 : [1995]

2 Suppl. SCR 567 and Municipal Committee, Sirhind v. Parshotam Dass & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 324 : [1996]

2 SCR 678 – referred to.

Munsha Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1960 P&H 317 (FB); Kishan Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1961 P&H 1; Jagat Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1962 P&H

221 (FB); Jit Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1964 P&H 419 (FB); Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; (2017) 2 Punjab Law Reporter 605; Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 P&H 220; Parkash Singh & Ors. v. Joint Development

Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 26809; Parkash Singh & Ors. v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 26809; Gurdial Singh v. State of Haryana 1979 PLJ 350; Bagga Singh v. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (1984) SCC OnLine P&H 384; Gram Panchayat, Gunia Majri v. Director,

Consolidation of Holdings & Ors (1990) SCC OnLine P&H 823; Baj Singh v. State of Punjab (1992) 1 PLR 10; Gram Panchayat, Village Bhedpura v. Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab (1997) 1 PLR 391; Gurjant Singh v. Commissioner, Ferozepore Division (2000) SCC OnLine P&H 56; Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1992) SCC OnLine P&H 570; Rajender Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 1980 P&H 37; State of Punjab v. S. Kehar Singh AIR 1959 P&H 8; 1958 SCC Online Punj 89; M/s. Hari Ram Paras Ram v. State of Haryana ILR (1982) 1 Punjab and Haryana 317 – referred to.