Supreme Court clarifies the definition of Shamlat Deh land and rights of displaced persons in land disputes: Dalip Ram vs. State of Punjab (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 12

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a person claim ownership of land that was originally leased to their father? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a batch of cases, focusing on the interpretation of “Shamlat Deh” land under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The core question was whether certain lands, initially leased or transferred to individuals, could be excluded from the definition of “Shamlat Deh” due to amendments in the Act. This judgment clarifies the rights of those claiming land based on quasi-permanent allotments or transfers, especially concerning displaced persons. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

Dalip Ram, the appellant, filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court judgment that upheld his eviction from land he claimed. The land was initially leased to his father. The Gram Panchayat sought his eviction, arguing he was in unauthorized possession after the lease expired. The authorities and the High Court found that the land was Shamlat Deh, owned by the Gram Panchayat, and that Dalip Ram’s father was merely a lessee.

Dalip Ram contended that the land was transferred to his father, a landless Harijan, and that he should benefit from a 1995 amendment to the Act. This amendment protects certain lands allotted to displaced persons or transferred before July 9, 1985. The High Court rejected his claim, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This section defines “Shamlat Deh” land. The 1995 amendment introduced Section 2(g)(ii-a), which excludes certain lands from the definition of Shamlat Deh. This exclusion applies to lands allotted on a quasi-permanent basis to displaced persons or transferred before July 9, 1985.

The amended Section 2(g) reads:

“2 (g) “Shamlat Deh includes : – (1) Lands described in the revenue records as shamlat deh excluding abadi deh; (2) Shamlat tikkas; But does not include land which (ii) has been allotted on quasi -permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamlat deh, but, has been allotted on quasi -permanent basis to a displaced person, or, has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985.”

The Supreme Court also considered the meaning of “displaced person” and “quasi-permanent basis” in this context. A “displaced person” is someone forced to flee their home due to conflict or disaster. “Quasi” means seemingly but not actually, resembling but not identical.

Arguments

Appellant (Dalip Ram)’s Arguments:

• Dalip Ram argued that the land was transferred to his father, a landless Harijan, by the government in 1961.
• He claimed that his father was a displaced person, entitling him to the protection of the 1995 amendment to Section 2(g) of the Act.
• He contended that the land was evacuee property, further supporting his claim.
• He stated that the land was not allotted but transferred to his father.

Respondent (State of Punjab & Gram Panchayat)’s Arguments:

• The Gram Panchayat argued that the land was Shamlat Deh and owned by them.
• They presented evidence that Dalip Ram’s father was a lessee, not an allottee or transferee.
• They stated that the lease had expired, and Dalip Ram was in unauthorized possession.
• They pointed out that the land was recorded as Shamlat Deh in the revenue records.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the subject lands were Shamlat Deh, allotted on a quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or transferred by sale or any other manner after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, but on or before July 9, 1985.

Additionally, the court considered whether the amendment to Section 2(g) of the Act would apply to the petitioner’s case to protect any allotment or transfer.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property & Ors. [1957 SCR 801 ; 1957 INSC 28]: The Supreme Court followed this judgment to distinguish between a lease and an allotment. It emphasized that an allotment is a temporary right of use, while a lease is a temporary grant.
• Basant Ram v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 994]: The court used this case to explain that a quasi-permanent allotment remains valid as long as the land is vested with the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
• Bakshish Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [2011 SCC OnLine P&H 11928]: The High Court’s decision was followed to emphasize that a lease is not a transfer of rights in the property, and thus, does not fall under the protection of the amendment.
• Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: The court used this provision to define the transaction as a lease, emphasizing its temporary nature.
• Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: The court interpreted this provision to determine whether the land fell under the definition of Shamlat Deh and whether the petitioner was entitled to protection under the amendment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding that Dalip Ram’s father was a lessee, not an allottee or transferee. The court emphasized that the 1995 amendment to Section 2(g) of the Act was meant to protect displaced persons who received land on a quasi-permanent basis or through a transfer of rights. The court also focused on the fact that the land was recorded as Shamlat Deh, which meant the Gram Panchayat was the rightful owner. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the recorded status of his father as a lessee at any point of time before any forum.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. It emphasized that the amendment was specifically intended for displaced persons with quasi-permanent allotments or transfers, which did not apply to Dalip Ram’s case. The court also relied on the consistent finding that the land was Shamlat Deh and that Dalip Ram’s father was merely a lessee.

The Supreme Court concluded that Dalip Ram, as the successor of his father, was an unauthorized occupant of the land after the lease expired. The court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing that the amendment did not protect his claim.

“The upshot of the discussion is that we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2011 that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner herein who stepped into the shoes of his father as lessee has been continuing there as an unauthorised occupant.”

“In the said circumstances, having found that the petitioner is not entitled to get the protection of the Amendment Act and that the period of lease had expired long back in 1971 and further that at any point of time before any forum, the petitioner had not challenged the recorded status of his father as lessee and further that he had only stepped into the shoes of his father, we find no reason to interfere with the direction to evict the petitioner from the subject land in the application filed under Section 7 as he being an unauthorised occupant as held by the authorities, which was confirmed under the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2011.”

“Accordingly, SLP(c) No.8687 of 2012 stands dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• A lease is not considered a transfer of rights in the property.
• The 1995 amendment to Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, only protects displaced persons who received land on a quasi-permanent basis or through a transfer of rights before July 9, 1985.
• Persons continuing possession of land after the expiry of a lease are deemed unauthorized occupants.
• The definition of “Shamlat Deh” land is strictly interpreted based on revenue records.
• Claims of ownership based on long possession after the expiry of the lease are not valid.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision and the eviction order against Dalip Ram. The court also dismissed all other connected Special Leave Petitions, except for those that were de-tagged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a lease does not amount to a transfer of rights in the property, and therefore, a lessee cannot claim protection under the amended Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court clarified that the amendment is specifically for displaced persons who received land on a quasi-permanent basis or through a transfer of rights before July 9, 1985. This judgment reinforces the distinction between a lease and an allotment and clarifies the rights of those claiming land based on historical leases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dalip Ram vs. State of Punjab clarifies the interpretation of “Shamlat Deh” land and the rights of displaced persons under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court held that a lease does not constitute a transfer of rights and that the 1995 amendment only protects displaced persons with quasi-permanent allotments or transfers before July 9, 1985. This decision has significant implications for land disputes in Punjab, reinforcing the importance of clear documentation and the distinction between leases and other forms of land transfer.

Category

Parent Category: Land Law

Child Categories:

• Shamlat Deh
• Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
• Displaced Persons
• Quasi-Permanent Allotment
• Lease
• Transfer of Property
• Eviction
• Section 2(g), Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

FAQ

Q: What is Shamlat Deh land?

A: Shamlat Deh land is village common land, as defined under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It generally belongs to the village panchayat.

Q: What does the 1995 amendment to Section 2(g) of the Act say?

A: The amendment excludes certain lands from the definition of Shamlat Deh, specifically those allotted on a quasi-permanent basis to displaced persons or transferred before July 9, 1985.

Q: What is the difference between a lease and an allotment?

A: A lease is a temporary grant of land for a specific period, while an allotment is a temporary right of use and occupation, often given to displaced persons. An allotment does not transfer ownership rights.

Q: Who is considered a displaced person under this Act?

A: A displaced person is someone forced to flee their home due to conflict, internal strife, human rights violations, or natural disasters.

Q: What happens if my lease on Shamlat Deh land has expired?

A: If your lease has expired, you are considered an unauthorized occupant and can be evicted by the Gram Panchayat.

Q: Does this judgment affect all land disputes in Punjab?

A: This judgment specifically addresses disputes related to Shamlat Deh land and the rights of displaced persons under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It provides clarity on the interpretation of the 1995 amendment and its applicability.