Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Panchayat Land Regularization for Encroachments Exceeding 200 Square Yards

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 46

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and M.R. Shah, J.

Can individuals who have encroached upon Panchayat land claim a right to have their illegal occupation regularized? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the interpretation of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The Court clarified that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land exceeding 200 square yards cannot be regularized under Rule 12(4) of the said rules. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting community land from encroachment and reinforces the principle that illegal occupants cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.

The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The petitioners, Joginder and Karamveer, residents of Village Sarsad, Haryana, had encroached upon Panchayat land and constructed houses. The land in question was undisputed to be vested in the Gram Panchayat. In 2000, the Government of Haryana introduced a policy for the sale of Panchayat land under unauthorized possession, both inside and outside the Abadi Deh (village habitation area). This policy led to amendments in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, with a notification issued on 1st August 2001.

Further, in 2008, Rule 12(4) was added to the 1964 Rules through a notification dated 3rd January 2008. This rule authorized Gram Panchayats to sell non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh (common village land) to villagers who had constructed houses on or before 31st March 2000, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners applied to the competent authority, seeking to purchase the land they had encroached upon, based on Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, after a personal hearing and site verification, rejected the petitioners’ applications. The Deputy Commissioner found that Joginder was in illegal occupation of 757.37 square yards, and Karamveer was in illegal occupation of 239.48 square yards, both exceeding the permissible limit under Rule 12(4). The petitioners then challenged this order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Commissioner’s decision. The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, which directed all State Governments to prepare schemes for the eviction of illegal occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat land. The High Court agreed that the petitioners did not meet the conditions for regularization under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. This rule allows a Gram Panchayat, with prior State Government approval, to sell non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to villagers who have constructed houses on or before 31st March 2000. The rule states:

“Rule 12(4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its non-cultivable land in shamlat deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before the 31st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passer-by, along with open space up to 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area up to a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate [floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher].”

This rule stipulates that the construction must be on non-cultivable land, not obstruct traffic, and the total area, including the constructed area and open space, must not exceed 200 square yards. The land can be sold at a price not less than the collector rate or market rate, whichever is higher.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that both the competent authority and the High Court misinterpreted Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. Their main submissions were:

• The 200 square yard limit applies only to the constructed area, not to the total area including open space. They contended that the rule allows for regularization even if the total occupied area exceeds 200 square yards, as long as the constructed area is within the limit, and the open space does not exceed 25% of the constructed area or a maximum of 200 square yards.

• The competent authority did not specifically determine the exact constructed area versus the open space area. They argued that the rule does not limit the constructed area, but only the open space to 25% of the constructed area, up to a maximum of 200 square yards.

• The High Court erred in relying on the Jagpal Singh case, as that case did not consider Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. They argued that the Jagpal Singh case was about eviction of illegal occupants, while their case was about regularization under a specific rule.

The petitioners also pointed out that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution supporting their case, which was submitted to the competent authority.

The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioners lies in their interpretation of Rule 12(4), attempting to separate the constructed area from the open space area for the purpose of the 200 square yard limit. This interpretation, if accepted, would have allowed regularization even for encroachments significantly larger than 200 square yards.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order of the competent authority rejecting the application of the petitioners for regularization of their illegal occupation of the panchayat land under Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 – Supreme Court of India. This case dealt with the issue of illegal encroachments on Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat land and directed all State Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of such occupants.
• State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, (2020) 12 SCC 649 – Supreme Court of India. This case held that an applicant seeking the benefit of a policy must comply with its terms.
• Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964: This rule allows Gram Panchayats to sell non-cultivable land to villagers who have constructed houses on or before 31st March 2000, subject to conditions including a maximum area of 200 square yards.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396: The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight the importance of evicting illegal occupants from Panchayat land and restoring it for the common use of villagers. The court emphasized that illegalities must not be condoned.
• State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, (2020) 12 SCC 649: This case was used to reinforce the principle that an applicant seeking the benefit of a policy must strictly comply with its terms.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. The Court emphasized that the rule specifies a maximum limit of 200 square yards for the total area of illegal occupation, including the constructed area and any open space. The Court also considered the larger public interest in protecting Panchayat land from encroachment and ensuring its availability for the common use of villagers.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of Rule 12(4) and the need to uphold the rule’s conditions. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal analysis was the dominant factor in the decision.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the 200 square yard limit applied only to the constructed area, stating that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the rule. The Court emphasized that the rule was intended to regularize small encroachments, not those significantly exceeding the specified limit. The Court also highlighted the need to protect Panchayat land for the common use of the villagers, as emphasized in the Jagpal Singh case.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of Rule 12(4) that would favor the petitioners, as the language of the rule was clear and unambiguous. The Court’s final decision was based on a straightforward interpretation of the rule and its application to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules because they did not meet the condition of having an illegal occupation of a maximum of 200 square yards. The Court agreed with the High Court and the competent authority that the petitioners’ encroachments exceeded the permissible limit, and therefore, their applications for regularization were rightly rejected.

“On a careful reading of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules, it is apparent that the illegal occupation of the panchayat land can be regularised provided the area of the illegal occupation is up to a maximum of 200 square yards. It includes the constructed area, open space up to 25% of the constructed area or appurtenant area.”

“Therefore, on a fair reading of Rule 12(4), in case of an illegal occupation of the area up to a maximum of 200 square yards including the constructed area, appurtenant area and open space area can be regularised and sold at not less than collector rate (floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher).”

“The persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• Illegal occupants of Panchayat land cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.
• Regularization is subject to strict compliance with the conditions stipulated in the relevant rules and policies.
• Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, limits the total area of illegal occupation, including constructed area and open space, to a maximum of 200 square yards for regularization.
• The judgment emphasizes the need to protect Panchayat land from encroachment and ensure its availability for the common use of villagers.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that illegalities must not be condoned, and that Panchayat land should be restored to the Gram Panchayat for the common use of the village.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, but reiterated the directions given in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, which directs all State Governments to prepare schemes for the eviction of illegal occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat land.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, must be interpreted strictly. The total area of illegal occupation, including the constructed area and open space, must not exceed 200 square yards for regularization. This judgment clarifies the scope of Rule 12(4) and reinforces the principle that illegal occupants cannot claim regularization as a matter of right if they do not meet the conditions stipulated in the rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that the 200 square yard limit under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, applies to the total area of illegal occupation, including the constructed area and open space. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting Panchayat land from encroachment and ensuring its availability for the common use of villagers. The judgment reinforces the principle that illegal occupants cannot claim regularization as a matter of right if they do not meet the conditions stipulated in the rules.

Category

• Land Law
  • Panchayat Land
  • Encroachment
  • Regularization
  • Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964
• Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964
  • Rule 12(4), Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964

FAQ

Q: Can I get my encroachment on Panchayat land regularized?

A: It depends on the specific rules and policies of your state. Generally, regularization is not a matter of right and is subject to conditions. In the case of Punjab, under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, the total area of encroachment, including constructed area and open space, must not exceed 200 square yards.

Q: What does Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 say about regularization?

A: This rule allows Gram Panchayats to sell non-cultivable land to villagers who have constructed houses on or before 31st March 2000, provided the total area of encroachment is not more than 200 square yards, and the construction does not obstruct traffic. The sale is subject to prior approval of the State Government.

Q: What if my encroachment is more than 200 square yards?

A: If your total encroachment, including the constructed area and open space, exceeds 200 square yards, you are not eligible for regularization under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964.

Q: Can I claim regularization if I have spent a lot of money on construction?

A: No. The Supreme Court has made it clear that neither the duration of illegal occupation nor the expenditure incurred on construction justifies regularization of illegal occupation of Panchayat land. Regularization is only possible if you meet the conditions stipulated in the relevant rules and policies.

Q: What should I do if I have illegally occupied Panchayat land?

A: It is best to seek legal advice and comply with the directions of the competent authorities. Illegal occupation of Panchayat land can lead to eviction, and it is important to understand your rights and responsibilities.