'Village's Common Land' : Supreme Court Restores 280 Acre Gurugram Land To Wazirabad Gram Panchayat

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) restored the ownership of approximately 280 acres of land in Gurugram to the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, holding that the land constituted shamilat deh and was vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed a batch of appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat and original defendants, overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had recognized ownership claims of private parties over 436 bighas and 18 biswas of land situated in the uninhabited village of Haiderpur in Gurugram.

“The Division Bench as well as the authorities failed to attach due importance to the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz, which recorded in clear terms that, in Haiderpur, the total area of the shamilat deh was 444 bighas 4 biswas, of which 436 bighas 18 biswas was ghair mumkin pahar, johar, nala, etc., in the possession of makbuja malkan (joint possession). Once this extent of 436 bighas 80 biswas was not shown to be in actual and separate cultivating possession of the proprietors individually, the land invariably constituted shamilat deh and could not be treated as allotted to anyone in particular.”, the Court observed.

Shamilat deh is the land collectively owned by village owners, also called 'Aala Maliks'. It was reserved for common use of the villagers and consisted of grazing grounds, roads, rivers, ponds, cremation grounds, hills, etc.

The controversy stemmed from Mutation No. 131 in 1955, which recorded the land in favour of Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. The mutation was based on governmental directions issued in 1954 and the then prevailing statutory framework governing village common lands.

In 1985, a group of villagers representing 524 claimants initiated proceedings under Section 13A of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, asserting that the land belonged not to the village community as a whole but to three specific pattis.

The litigation travelled through multiple forums over four decades. While revenue authorities initially granted relief to the claimants, the Commissioner later restored the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The High Court subsequently reversed that decision, prompting the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected the claimant's contention against the declaration of the disputed land as common land. The Court said that since no partition of the disputed land took place before 26.01.1950, i.e., the crucial cut-off date prescribed under the statutory scheme, the land would be treated as a village's common land. 

If a valid partition had occurred before that date, subsequent revenue records would not have continued to reflect joint possession through the entry makbuja malkan, the Court said.

“Once the land is taken to be shamilat deh, in which the village proprietors had a right to seek partition, it is not Section 2(g)(3) or Section 2(g)(v) of the Act of 1961 that would have application, but Section 2(g)(iii) or Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act of 1961. In situations coming under these provisions, it is necessary for a claimant seeking exclusion of land from the classification of shamilat deh to prove that such land was partitioned before 26.01.1950 and was brought into the cultivating possession of individual co-sharers as per such partition.”, the Court said.

“We, therefore, find that the plaintiffs in Case No. 18/DRO failed to make out any tenable grounds to interfere with the mutation effected on 13.09.1955 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. The facts demonstrate that the subject land was not shamilat patti but constituted part of the shamilat deh of Haiderpur and though the proprietors, viz., patti Chitru, Ramratan and Medha; patti Sadasukh; and patti Ahmed Ali Khan, had the right to seek partition thereof in accordance with their shares, no such partition took place prior to 26.01.1950 and, in consequence, the shamilat deh of 436 Bighas 18 Biswas continued as such, attracting Section 2(g)(1) of the Act of 1961, and vested in the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. It was not necessary in such a situation to even prove that the land in question was used, as per the revenue records, for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village.”, the Court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeals were allowed.

Cause Title: Suraj Bhan and others versus Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashwir Singh Hooda, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Tanuj Dixit, Adv. Ms. Neeta Verma, Adv. Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. A M Dar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Ms. Chamundeswari Pemmasani, Adv. Mr. Shivam Goel, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Govind Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Sareen, Adv. Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. Ms. Arlene Noronha, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Rajput, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Chand Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Abhilash Vashisth, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Dadhich, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashvir Singh Hooda, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Ms. Rekha, Adv. Ms. Neeta Verma, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. T Meikandan, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Bhaimad, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Adv. Mr. Syed Mazahir Hussain Chishty, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR  Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR