Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Lease & Allotment

The Supreme Court yesterday (on January 02), while deciding a batch of civil appeals, reiterated that terms lease and allotment are different. Lease is a temporary grant whereas allotment though is a temporary right of use and occupation of evacuee but does not include a grant by way of a lease., the Court said.

The Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal relied upon a thread of precedents Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property & Ors., 1957 INSC 28, Basant Ram v. Union of India., AIR 1962 SC 994 to hold:

"In Dalip Ram's case (supra), which was dismissed as per orders in this judgment, we have held that 'lease' and 'allotment' are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease."

Pertinently, the common issue in all the appeals was whether the subject lands were classified as Shamlat Deh and allotted on a quasi-permanent basis to displaced persons, or whether they were Shamlat Deh transferred to others after the commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

“While considering the question of benefit flowing from the amendment, Section 2 (g) of the Act by inserting (iia) to it, we have already found that the land in question should have been Shamlat deh and the person claiming the benefit should establish that it was allotted to him on permanent basis or transferred by way of sale or in any other manner or transferred in any other manner on permanent basis with rights over the same.,” the Court held.

It also observed mere non-framing of the issues will not nullify the decision if parties have already understood and produced evidence on the issues.

“When the petitioners themselves filed Section 11 petitions and attempted to establish the fact that the subject land(s) involved is not Shamlat deh and the Gram Panchayat concerned also produced evidence to evince that the position is vice-versa, how can it be held that they were at a loss to understand the issue and not adduced their best evidence in that regard.”

Thus, the Court affirmed the finding of the High Court that the lands involved fell into the category of Shamlat deh. The same was arrived after pursuing the evidence adduced by the Gram Panchayats. Thus, the owner of the concerned lands was Gram Panchayat and not the appellants.

It may also be noted that the issue in the lead appeal was whether the appellant, who stepped into the shoes of his father as lessee, was an unauthorised occupant. Having evicted by the concerned authorities, the petitioner first approached the High Court and now the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench of the Top Court noted that the land was given to the father of the appellant on an annual rate for ten years. The definition of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would, therefore, make it nothing but a 'lease'., the court said. It further ruled out the possibility of allotment on a quasi-permanent basis.

Moreover, the Court observed that the lease was expired much before in 1971 and the appellant has been continuing there without rent even as the eviction was ordered. To support its findings, the Court also pointed out that, prior to this, the appellant had never challenged the recorded status of his father as a lessee. Thus, the Court dismissed his appeal.

As far as the main issue was concerned, the Court held that not did the appellants failed to prove that the land was not Shamlat deh but also could not establish that it was allotted or transferred to them. Thus, it refused to interfere with the findings of the High Court.

Case Name: Dalip Ram Versus The State of Punjab & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8687 of 2012

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Click here to read the judgment