Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Shamilat Deh’ land under Punjab Village Common Lands Act: Patram vs. Gram Panchayat Katwar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 4, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 217
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.
Can land traditionally held by a family within a village, but not used for common village purposes, be classified as ‘shamilat deh’ land and thus vest with the village council? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in a case concerning land rights in Haryana. The court clarified the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ land under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, specifically focusing on whether land described as ‘shamilat patti’ falls under this definition. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where the appellant, Patram, claimed that the land in his possession was a ‘patti’ (a portion of land within a village), held by his family for over a century. He argued that this land was never used for common village purposes and, therefore, should not be considered ‘shamilat deh’ land, which would vest in the village council. The land was initially recorded as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ in revenue records, with the possession of the appellant or his ancestors. Later, the entry was changed to ‘Panchayat Deh’.

The appellant challenged this change of entry, but his appeals were rejected by the Collector, Bhiwani, and the Commissioner, Hisar Division. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was also rejected.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s challenge against the change of land ownership entry was dismissed by the Collector, Bhiwani, and subsequently by the Commissioner, Hisar Division. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana also rejected the appellant’s writ petition, primarily focusing on the interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The High Court held that since the land was described as “shamlat patti” and not “shamlat taraf,” “pattis,” “pannas,” or “thola,” it did not fall within the exception under Section 2(g)(v) of the Act. The High Court emphasized the presence of a comma in clause (3) of Section 2(g) after ‘shamilat’ and absence of the same in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g).

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which defines ‘shamilat deh’ land. The relevant portions of the section are:

“2.Definitions. – in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
xxx xxx xxx
(g)“shamilat deh” includes–
(1) land described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh or Charand excluding abadi deh;
(2) shamilat tikkas;
(3) land described in the revenue records as shamilat, tarafs, patties, 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;
(4) xxxx
(4a) xxxx
(5) xxxx
but does not include land which–
(i) 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;
xxx xxx xxx
(v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat taraf, pattis, pannas and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;
xxx xxx xxx”

The Act aims to regulate common lands in villages, vesting them in the village proprietary body for the benefit of the community. The definition of ‘shamilat deh’ is crucial in determining which lands fall under this regulation. The key point of contention is the interpretation of sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g) and whether the term ‘shamilat’ applies to all subsequent terms (‘taraf’, ‘pattis’, ‘pannas’, and ‘thola’) or only to ‘taraf’.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the land, though recorded as ‘shamilat patti’, was a ‘patti’ in their possession for over a century.
• The land was never used for common village purposes and had been cultivated by them.
• The appellant argued that under Section 2(g)(v) of the Act, land described as ‘shamilat taraf, pattis, pannas and thola’ and not used for common village purposes is excluded from the definition of ‘shamilat deh’.
• The appellant emphasized that the land was recorded in the possession of the appellant or his ancestors in the Jamabandis from 1915-1916 till date.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the land was ‘shamilat deh’ land and vested in the village council.
• They relied on the revenue records where the land was described as ‘Shamlat Patti’, and ‘Panchayat Deh’.
• The respondents, supported by the High Court’s reasoning, contended that the absence of a comma after ‘shamilat’ in Section 2(g)(v) meant that the exception only applied to ‘shamilat taraf’ and not to ‘shamilat patti’.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s reliance on the practical usage of the land and the historical possession of the land rather than the literal interpretation of the legal provision.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with ‘taraf, patti, pannas, and tholas’ or only with ‘taraf’ in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to Sir W.H. Rattigan’s ‘A Digest on Civil Law for the Punjab’ to understand the historical context of village common lands. The court quoted the following:

“….Lands so reserved are jealously guarded as the common property of the original body of settlers who founded the village or of their descendants, and occasionally also those who assisted the settlers in clearing the waste and bringing it under cultivation are recognized as having a share in these reserved plots. Even in villages which have adopted separate ownership as to the cultivated areas, some such plots are usually reserved as village common, and in pattidari village. It is not unusual to find certain portions of the waste reserved for the common use of the proprietors of each patti, and other portions for common village purposes, the former is designated shamilat­patti and the latter shamilat­deh.”

The court also discussed the meaning of ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’, and ‘thola’, stating they are different terms but have a common strain related to groups of villagers based on clan, caste, sect, area, etc.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the land in question could not be classified as ‘shamilat deh’ land. The court reasoned that the absence of a comma after ‘shamilat’ in Section 2(g)(v) was a mistake and that the term ‘shamilat’ should be read with all the subsequent terms (‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’, and ‘thola’). The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision was to exclude land not used for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof from the definition of ‘shamilat deh’.

The court noted that the land was always shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of the appellant(s) or his ancestors. It was never shown to be used for the benefit of the entire village community or even a part of the community.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Sir W.H. Rattigan’s ‘A Digest on Civil Law for the Punjab’ to understand the historical context of village common lands and the meaning of terms like ‘shamilat patti’ and ‘shamilat deh’. The Court interpreted Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, to determine the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ and its exceptions. The court held that the absence of a comma after ‘shamilat’ in the negative part of the definition was a mistake and the term ‘shamilat’ should be read with all subsequent terms. The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision was to exclude land not used for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof from the definition of ‘shamilat deh’.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The historical context of village common lands and the meaning of ‘shamilat patti’ and ‘shamilat deh’.
• The practical usage of the land, which was never used for common village purposes but was in the possession of the appellant and his ancestors.
• The interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Act, specifically the negative portion which defines the exclusion to the definition of ‘shamilat deh’.
• The court’s view that the absence of a comma after ‘shamilat’ in Section 2(g)(v) was a mistake, and that the term ‘shamilat’ should be read with all subsequent terms.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Logical Reasoning

The court rejected the literal interpretation of the provision, emphasizing the purpose of the law and the practical usage of the land. It held that even if the land was described as ‘shamilat patti’, if it was not used for the common purpose of the village, it would not be considered ‘shamilat deh’ land.

The Supreme Court stated:

“In our view, the absence of the comma after the word ‘shamilat’ is not of any great significance. In fact, it appears that the comma has been left out by mistake.”

“The word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four – ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’. A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’ , ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’.”

“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’.”

Key Takeaways

• Land described as ‘shamilat patti’ does not automatically qualify as ‘shamilat deh’ land.
• The practical usage of the land is a crucial factor in determining whether it is ‘shamilat deh’ land.
• If land is not used for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof, it cannot be classified as ‘shamilat deh’ land.
• The absence of a comma in a legal provision may be considered a mistake and not a deliberate exclusion.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the orders of all the authorities below. The court directed that the name of the appellant(s) be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term ‘shamilat’ in Section 2(g)(v) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, must be read with all subsequent terms, including ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’, and ‘thola’. The court clarified that the practical usage of the land is a crucial factor in determining whether it is ‘shamilat deh’ land, and that land not used for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof cannot be classified as ‘shamilat deh’. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 2(g) and provides a more practical approach to determining what constitutes ‘shamilat deh’ land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Patram vs. Gram Panchayat Katwar provides a significant clarification on the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ land under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the practical usage of the land and its benefit to the village community are critical factors in determining whether it should be classified as ‘shamilat deh’ land. The decision ensures that land not used for common village purposes, even if described as ‘shamilat patti’, does not automatically vest in the village council. This ruling protects the rights of individuals and families who have traditionally held and cultivated such lands.