PATRAM V. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6319 OF 2009.
“From the revenue records produced, we find that the land has been shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’. ‘Dhera &Khubi’ are the ancestors of the appellant(s). The possession is shown as that of proprietors/self-cultivators and an entry was made in favour of the Panchayat Deh in 19871988. The land was always shown to be ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of the appellant(s) or his ancestors. Moreover, the land was never shown to be used for the benefit of the entire village community or even for a part of the community.”
In India, land is said to be the true basis for the unity in a village, supplying the ultimate bond between the residents of the village who collectively are known as the village community. When settlers went to new areas and cleared forests or turned barren lands into cultivable lands, certain portions of the land were left for common use such as charand land used for grazing, lands used for wells, watercourses, land used for common purposes and also for extension of the village residential area normally known as the Abadi. These lands which were reserved for common purposes were jealously guarded and were in essence the common property of the original settlers and those who had helped them after clearing the waste and bringing the land under cultivation.
A short question which is involved in this case is whether the land in occupation of the appellant(s) is ‘shamilat deh’ land within the meaning of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and resides in the village common body. The land in question is situated in Haryana and, therefore, for the purpose of this judgment we shall be referring to the Act as amended and applicable to the State of Haryana.
The contention of the appellant(s) is that the land in dispute though ‘shamilat’ land, is actually a patti in possession of the appellant(s) and his ancestors for more than a century and is not being used for the common purposes of the village and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ land.
The case of the appellant(s) is that for more than a century is that he and his ancestors held a patti which has never been used for the common purpose of the village and has been cultivated by them. This land has never been used for common village purpose and in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act cannot be included in the definition of ‘shamilat deh’. The land continues to be shown in the possession of the appellant(s) or his ancestors in the Jamaband are from the year 19151916 till date. The earlier entries in the column of ownership which read as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ were replaced by the entry ‘Panchayat Deh’. Aggrieved, the appellant(s) approached the Collector, Bhiwani challenging the change of entry in the column of ownership.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar dated 28th august, 2007 wherein it has been concluded that the land under reference is in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner, although the same is Shamlat land. It is, therefore that the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar while upholding the order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani dated 23.8.2001.
The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the determination rendered by the afore-stated Collector and Commissioner, respectively, are in clear violation of the definition of the term “shamlat deh” in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Since reliance has been placed on Section 2(g) of the Act, the same is being extracted herein: “2(g) “shamilat deh “includes-
Lands described in the revenue records as ( Shamilat Deh or Charand) excluding abadi deh;
Shamilat tikkas;
Lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, tarafs, pattis,pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;
Lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh; and
Lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records.
From the revenue records produced, court found that the land has been shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’. ‘Dhera & Khubi’ are the ancestors of the appellant(s). The possession is shown as that of proprietors/selfcultivators and an entry was made in favour of the Panchayat Deh in 19871988. The land was always shown to be ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of the appellant(s) or his ancestors. Moreover, the land was never shown to be used for the benefit of the entire village community or even for a part of the community.
“The Supreme Court has observed that the purpose of the section which defines ‘shamilat deh’ is that the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ not used for the benefit of the village community will not be treated as ‘shamilat deh’. Clause (3) of Section 2(g) is identical. The purpose is that the land which is described in revenue records as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ and used for the benefit of the entire village community or a part thereof only would vest in the village proprietary body. The words ‘part thereof’ has been used with a specific purpose in the background of the meaning of Patti which we have dealt with in detail above. Pending applications if any, shall stands disposed of. No order as to costs.”
View/Download Judgement:PATRAM V. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS.
– Vishal Varma
Comments