Law Enacted For Agrarian Reforms Not Violative Of Right To Property Under Article 300-A Of Constitution: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Haryana's land reform law, the "Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 2010)" (the Act), observing that it "recognised the rights of tillers of the land."

Dholidar is a "kind of tenant" of the land and a trustee who gets the land as a deathbed gift for the purpose of social service. Butimar is also a tenant who clears the jungle and brings the land under cultivation. Bhondedar is granted land for some secular service such as duties of village watchman or messenger. 

As per the Act the above category of tillers of the land, who were entered as such, in the revenue records for more than 20 years, will get the title and all other rights over the land.

While rejecting the argument that the Act is violative of the right to property under Article 300-A, a division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra said that the statute "enjoys constitutional immunity within the ambit of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India."

The Court opined that the fine constitutional purpose of agrarian reforms is achieved, through the impugned legislation, especially when a reading of the Statements of Objects and Reasons makes explicit expression that the law was enacted for the purpose of "agrarian reforms."

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of "Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 2010)".

It was argued that the ownership and rights granted to the Dholidars and other class of tenants of the land under the Act should be given only after granting adequate compensation to the real owners and it is violative of property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

According to the Statement of Object and Reasons of the Act, even though the above-stated category of persons have been cultivating the lands for several generations, they were not able to sell, alienate, lease or mortgage such land or raise loans from financial institutions, resulting in undue hardship to their families.

Persons belonging to these categories have been rendering services to their community and retaining the land for subsistence but they are not absolute owners of land, compounding their misery, it stated.

Adding that they are "actual tillers of the land", the Object stated that the Act is enacted to provide for payment of token compensation to the landowners whose rights are extinguished.

Considering the objective of the law, the Court said that the Statute abolished intermediaries, and, recognized the rights of tillers and the statutes was well "calibrated towards making agrarian reforms."

The bench also said that the Statement of Objects and Reasons provides a mirror to the reasons for the introduction of the bill, which subsequently became assented to.

"Consequently, when a keen reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons is manifested, that therebys the impugned Act, thus causing the removal of intermediaries, and, rather recognizing of rights of kabza malik who are Dholidars, Butimars, Bhondedars and Muqararidars over the disputed lands. Resultantly, when the said Statement of Objects and Reasons is clearly indicative of the legislative intent," it noted.

The Court said the statute will fall within the purview of constitutional immunity under Article 31-A of the Constitution and therefore, it will not be violative of property rights under Article 300-A.

Justice Thakur highlighted that "...the impugned legislation has dispensed with the ill workings of agro feudalism, thus detrimental to the prolonged cultivations without rent being made over the disputed lands, by the above categories of persons."

"As but a natural corollary thereto, the freedom from agro feudal fiefdom, as becomes bestowed, upon the above categories of persons but is necessarily a laudable agrarian reform, and, therebys the impugned legislation is required to be complemented rather than the same being declared to be ultra vires the Constitution", the Court observed.

In light of the above, the Court upheld the validity of the Act and directed the empowered statutory authorities to proceed with the applications seeking rights over the land under the Act in order to make an order "conferring proprietary rights."

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 105

Title: Sushil Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order