Punjab & Haryana HC Declares Haryana Govt Notification Curtailing Land Rights Of 'Dholidars' As Unconstitutional

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared the Haryana Government's notification unconstitutional, which made the application of amendments under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar, and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act retrospective.

The petitioners, who had been recorded as occupancy tenants (Dholidars), sought protection of their property rights, arguing that the amendments arbitrarily deprived them of ownership rights conferred by previous legislation,

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "Be that as it may, since there has been an evident truncation and snatching of the absolute rights conferred by the supra statutory declaration, vis-a-vis the present petitioners, therebys also the impugned amendment is constitutionally void. Moreover, reiteratedly it also remains unclothed with the constitutional immunity, as it is not maneuvered towards bringing agrarian reforms."

The court said that the amendments arbitrarily took away vested land rights, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

"Predominantly also when the present petitioners are the tillers over the subject lands, and, when qua such tillers, there are expositions of law that their rights, as tillers but being unamenable to be snatched, as they are directly linked to the soil, wherebys they are not intermediaries, nor when therebys they come within the expression of acquirable 'estate', as defined in clause (a) of sub-Article (2) of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, nor when their rights as occupancy tenants upon," it added.

The plea was filed challenging the "notification No. Leg. 26/2022 dated 23.8.2022 issued vide Haryana Act No. 26 of 2022" under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018, to be null, void and ultra vires.

The petitioners claimed that their proprietary rights, once vested by law, could not be arbitrarily revoked without due process or compensation.

It was  argued that their status as Dholidars and occupancy tenants had been recognized historically and the 2011 Act had granted them ownership rights.

It was further contended that retrospective nature of the amendment disrupted existing land transactions, including sale deeds executed before the amendment.

The state defended the amendment as a step toward land reforms aimed at redistributing land more equitably.

It argued that the legislation was protected under Article 31-A, which allows the acquisition or modification of property rights in furtherance of agrarian reforms. The State maintained that Dholidars, Butimars, Bhondedars, and Muqararidars were not absolute owners and their rights could be modified in public interest.

Rejecting the state's contention the Court found that the legislation did not enjoy protection under Article 31-A of the Constitution. It also held that the law was expropriatory in nature and did not qualify as agrarian reform.

The court observed that Article 300-A mandates that property rights cannot be taken away except by authority of law. 

Since the amendment effectively expropriated land from the petitioners without just compensation or due legal process, it violated constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property.

The court analysed whether the amendment could be classified as an agrarian reform law, which would grant it immunity under Article 31-A. It found that the amendment lacked a clear agrarian reform objective. Unlike earlier laws that aimed to remove intermediaries and distribute land to actual cultivators, the 2022 amendment failed to advance a socio-economic purpose justifying the removal of vested rights.

The court said that legal transactions, including sales executed based on the 2011 Act, could not be invalidated retrospectively. It emphasized that titles transferred legally under a valid statute could not be undone arbitrarily by subsequent amendments.

Title: Bhawar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 140

Click here to read/download the order