Land Allotment: Panchayat Can Exempt Certain Category Of Persons From Charges But Only On Ground Of Poverty: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of a Gram Panchayat's resolution to allocate land certain individuals under proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964,

The division bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Kuldeep Tiwari ruled that the Gram Panchayat has no authority to carve plots from gada khad and make resolutions for allotments "to any member of the scheduled caste or backward class or to any landless labourers or tenant."

"The proviso underneath sub-Rule (4),empowers the Gram Panchayat concerned, to exempt a member of the scheduled caste or backward class or any landless labourer or tenant but only on the ground of poverty. However, the exemption assigned in the proviso underneath sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8, is restricted only in respect of the charges, which are otherwise leviable qua user of the designated manure pits bh the Gram Panchayat concerned," said the court.

The petitions were filed to challenge the rejection of the resolution by a Gram Panchayat to allocate land referred to as "gada khad" to members of Scheduled Castes, backward classes, landless labourers, or tenants.

The contested resolution, which was passed in 2014, while referencing to a gada khad and plot measuring 495 kanals and 16 marlas, as well as a gair mumkin gada and banjar qadim land spanning 516 kanals and 07 marlas, stated that the approval had been granted for the allocation of gada khad lands to the intended beneficiaries.

The resolution was forwarded to the appropriate authority, but by the time it was received, the land had fallen within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Sonepat. The competent authority rejected the Panchayat's resolution.

The counsels for the petitioners contended that the terms of the proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, grants the Gram Panchayat the authority to allocate the land reserved as gada khad to individuals belonging to scheduled castes, backward classes, landless labourers, or tenants.

They asserted that the impugned orders are flawed and should be overturned as they were based on a misinterpretation of the proviso located at the end of Rule 8.

While rejecting the arguments put forth by the counsels for the petitioners, the bench said,

"A keen reading of the said rule reveals, that the shamilat deh lands are permissible to become utilized by the Panchayat, through a resolution in writing, but only for (a) grazing purposes, (b) collecting dry fire-wood from the jungle on terms laid down by the Panchayat (c) open spaces near the Abadi deh may, with the previous permission of the Panchayat and in the manner laid down by it, be utilized by the inhabitants of the village for threshing the harvests, (d) the Panchayat concerned, if necessary, may earmark suitable land for use as manure pits by the inhabitants of the village on such nominal charges as may be fixed by it."

The bench explained that the meaning of the proviso cannot lead to any interpretation that it  assigns any leverage or privilege in the Gram Panchayat concerned to  carve plots from gair mumkin gada khad and make resolution for allotments thereof, in purported terms of the proviso to sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8, to any member of the scheduled caste or backward class or to any landless labourers or tenant.

Case Title: Ravinder and others vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 24136 of 2016

Argued by: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-24136-2016, CWP-2200-2017 and CWP-25367-2016).

Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-7961-2018 & CWP-15496-2022).

Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-16156-2022).

Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. B.S.Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Simar Bedi, Advocate for respondent No. 4 (in CWP-24136-2016 CWP-2200-2017) and for respondent No. 5 (in CWP-25367-2016).

Ms. Vasundhra Asija, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (in CWP-16156-2022)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment