Riparian Land Owners Entitled To Alluvion Deposits When Rivers Change Their Course: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared a notification deleting clause of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as "unconstitutional" observing that riparian land owners will be entitled to alluvion depositsThe Court said that deleting Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 196 is liable to be declared to be ultra vires Article 31-A of...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared a notification deleting clause of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as "unconstitutional" observing that riparian land owners will be entitled to alluvion deposits
The Court said that deleting Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 196 is liable to be declared to be ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.
In 1976, the notification had deleted Section Section 2(g)(i) which stated that Shamilat deh (land for community use) will not include land which, “becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records.”
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra said, "deleted provision has completely truncated the rights of riparian owners vis-a-vis the alluvion deposits, as made on the banks of the river where ons they hold rights of ownership, besides has also snatched the rights of the riparian owners to claim ownership over those lands which are earlier submerged in the rivers, and, which become exposed to the skies on account of change in courses of the rivers, as the riparian owners have the right upto the middle of the bed of the river."
The bench added that, "the individual cultivators, who own lands abutting the rivers concerned, which undergo changes in their courses, thereby do become entitled to alluvion deposits, as become made on the lands, adjunct to the rivers, thus on the premise, that riparian owners own lands but not only on the banks of the rivers but also such ownership extending upto the half of the bed(s) of the rivers concerned, therebys on exposure to the skies of such beds of the rivers concerned, rather on change in courses of the rivers, thus taking place, thereby the riparian owner has a right to claim ownership thereovers, unless of course there is evidence suggestive, that the revenue records did not express such fact thereins."
The Court further added that "it is yet imperative for the riparian owner to prove, that he holds the land abutting the banks of the river concerned, besides is also required to imperatively prove that earlier to the changes in the courses of the river taking place."
Moreover, river actions are uncontrollable by humans, rather are events of vis major. Resultantly, when the movement of rivers cannot become frozen nor can become statasized by human action, therebys when a riparian owner neither can foresee, nor control the flow of the rivers, the bench added.
The Court was hearing batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the impugned notification, wherebys it omitted Section 2(g)(i), in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
After hearing the submissions, the Court set aside the notification and said that when the individual cultivator who owns land adjunct to the banks of the river concerned, faces the risk of his losing the land on account of submergence thereof in the river.
In sequel, he has to be assigned the benefit of alluvion deposits, as occur on the banks of river on account of the change in course of the river, the Court added.
"The said riparian owner also becomes entitled to claim ownership over those lands, which become exposed to the skies, on the change in course of rivers, but of course on the banks of such rivers, the individual owner holding individual title, and/or subject to the individual owner establishing his title over the lands adjunct to the river, as therebys the riparian owner can claim his owning land upto the middle of the stream, and, can also claim, thus on the exposure of such lands to the skies, as happens on account of change in course of the rivers, that he has ownership rights thereovers," the Court added.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur speaking for the Court said that the impugned deletion, thus does cause the relevant obstacles, thereby also the impugned legislation is liable to be declared to be ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.
"The legislature has attempted to foresee that there would be no change in the course of river, besides has attempted to untenably perceive, that forevers the rivers would take a direction as the legislature deems fit. The said perceptions, and, contemplations were not within the domain of the legislature, as thereby the doctrine of vis major has been attempted to be untenably curtailed," said the division bench.
The Court also noted that there is complete deficit of manpower, and, staff in the revenue departments concerned, working in the State of Punjab and Haryana, for the makings of the imperative constant surveys in commensuration, with changes of courses of rivers, which flow within the territories of the said States, so that therebys, the records of rights are updated.
Consequently, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretaries in revenue department of both the states to "immediately overcome" the deficit of man power.
In light of the above, the plea was disposed of.
Title: Balbhadur Singh (deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 143