'Part Of Agrarian Reform, Protected By Article 31A Constitution': Supreme Court Upholds 1992 Haryana Amendment To Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act

A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and the Panchayats and upheld the validity of the impugned Amending Act on the ground that it forms a part of agrarian reform and is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution. It held that the reserved land ought to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and no part of it can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors of such lands. It was clarified that only management and control of the land is vested in the Panchayat by the Amending Act. The Bench also noted that land is not acquired by invoking the Amending Act and it entails no compensation.

Challenge to the 1992 Haryana Amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

Background

The 1992 Haryana Amendments in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") were challenged before the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It struck down the amendments so introduced. The decision was challenged before the Apex Court which remanded the matter back for lack of recording of a crucial finding. The Review Petition was rejected by the Full Bench on consideration of the legality of the impugned provision, i.e., Section 2(g) 6 of the Act, which reads as under -

"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

xxx xxx xxx

(g) shamilat deh" includes

xxx xxx xxx

(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.

Explanation- Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as 'Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, 'Jumla Malkan' or 'Mushtarka Malkan' shall be Shamilat Deh within the meaning of this Section."

The object of introducing the amendment was stated to be to make the provisions of the Act more effective, practical, deterrent and beneficial to the interest of the Gram Panchayat.

The shamilat deh lands in Punjab and Haryana are the common lands in the villages reserved and utilised for common purposes. The agricultural tribes who cultivated and made the land cultivable were the original landowners and they were known as khewatdar. They collectively were the owners of land in a village. The shamilat lands were enjoyed collectively by these khewatdars and other inhabitants of the village. In 1948, the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 ("1984 Act") was enacted for compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing fragmentation. The consolidation operations were carried out as per the Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. Thereafter, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 extinguished all private interests in shamilat deh lands and vest them in the village panchayats. Its constitutionality was challenged before the P&H High Court in Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 P&H 220. The High Court held 1953 Act would be covered by Article 31-A of the Constitution as it provides for the extinguishment of certain rights in certain property belonging to the village proprietors and also for the modification of those rights. The Supreme Court had examined the nature of shamilat lands (common lands) in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh (1985) 3 SCC 661. It held that being a measure of agrarian reform the Act would be protected by Article 31A of the Constitution. Thereafter, came the 1961 Act which completely vested the ownership and title of the shamilat land in the respective Gram Panchayats.

Contentions raised by the appellant

Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Kant, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that once a land is reserved for common purpose, even if not put to use would not revest with the proprietors. There is no timeframe within which the land ought to be utilised and the Gram Panchayat is at liberty to put it to use for any common purpose at any point in time. It was contended that the Panchayat could lease out such land in furtherance of common purpose. He argued that the impugned Section 2(g)(6) was merely a clarificatory amendment. In the alternative, he submitted that even if it was a provision to acquire land, it was a case of acquisition with 'Nil' compensation as the benefit has already accrued to the proprietors under the consolidation scheme.

Contentions raised by the respondents

Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Swarup appearing on behalf of the proprietors assailed the Amending Act on the ground that it confers rights and interests to the Panchayat by vesting the land in it. He argued, it, thus, empowers the Panchayat to alienate the land so vested. Advocate, Anubha Agarwal, argued that though the 1948 Act did not envisage diverting ownership, the Amendment Act does so, that too, without compensation in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. Another argument put forth by the Counsel for proprietors was that the lands earmarked for common purpose were never used for the same and were always with the proprietors, who are owners of the said land and cannot be, now, deprived of their proprietary rights by way of the Amending Act. It was asserted that the surplus land that remained un-utilised was to be revested with the proprietors.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that common land under Section 2(g)(1) and (6) of the 1961 Act as amended can be classified as -

a. shamilet deh recorded in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation which vests unequivocally with the commencement of the Punjab and PEPSU Act.

• b. 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.
• c. 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.

Referring to the judgment of the P&H High Court in Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 P&H 220 and the Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh (1985) 3 SCC 661, the Court held that the first category was part of agrarian reform. The land in the second category was also a part of the agrarian reforms protected by Article 31A of the Constitution as held by the P&H High Court in Kishan Singh And Anr. v. State of Punjab And Ors. AIR 1961 P&H 1 and Jagat Singh And Ors. v. State of Punjab And Ors. AIR 1962 P&H 221 (FB), which was later affirmed by the Apex Court. In the present appeals, the Court found -

"Thus, we find that 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 was held to be clarificatory and it was held that Section 2(g)(6) read with Section 4 of the 1961 Act vests land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rate cut in the village Panchayat. It was also noted that the Amending Act enacted after the assent of the President was a part of the agrarian reform. When the Amending Act was published Article 31 stood omitted and therefore there existed no provision of payment of compensation. Though Article 300 existed, but, mere vesting of the land with Panchayat could not have invoked the same.

With respect to the third category, the Court stated that it was found to be agrarian reforms by the P&H High Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab IRL (1996) 1 Punjab 828. On appeal, a Constitution Bench of the Apex 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. Such land would not be available for sale as the Panchayat is not the full owner of the land. It was clarified that this would not amount to acquisition under second proviso to Article 31A(1).

Citing a catena of judgments it was held that the land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned on the ground that within a particular timeline the reserved land was not put to common use. Considering that common purpose is a dynamic expression, it held that the reserved land can be used for other common purposes than the one for which it was reserved.

Challenge to the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 2(52A) and Section 161(1)(g) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994

Contentions raised by the appellant

Senior Advocate, Devadatt Kamat submitted that the Amending Act of 1999 inserted shamilat land which it contemplated would be vested in municipality. He argued that the same was not agrarian reform and therefore was not protected under Article 31A of the Constitution. Therefore, it is an acquisition and compensation ought to be paid for the same. Ms. Agarwal had stated that the shamilat land is for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village and therefore the use of such land cannot be extended to other villages. Shamilat land being a rural concept cannot be adopted by urban municipal law. Moreover, vesting land in municipal bodies is also not agrarian reform, hence not protected by Article 31A.

Contentions raised by the respondent

Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Kant appearing for the State argued that in terms of Section 4 of the 1961 Act, the land vested with the Panchayat which would be transferred to the Municipal bodies and therefore, the proprietors would not be entitled to compensation.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

It noted that under Section 7(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act when the Panchayat area comes within municipal limits, Panchayat ceases, and the land would then vest with the municipality and will not revert back to the proprietor. The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if a part of the property of Panchayat is included in the municipal limits, it would vest with the municipality. On a conjoint reading of the statues, the Court held -

"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."

Case Name: State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Jai Singh And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Case No. and Date: Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 | 07 April 2022

Corum: Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian

Headnotes

Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (Amending Act) - amended Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - land for common purposes can be classified in three categories - land in all three categories are part of agrarian reforms and is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - 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 - the Amending Act having been enacted after the assent of the President, is protected in terms of Article 31A of the Constitution - 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 utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment