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

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 1992 Haryana Amendment ("Amending Act") to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961, which vests land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rate cut in the village Panchayat. 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...

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

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags