Gram Panchayat vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—A bunch of writ petitions bearing Nos. 3015 of 1983, 6915 of 1986, 694, 7468, 8256, 8506, 8750, 8751, 8783, 8961, 8962, 9070, 9117, 9143, 9149, 9478, 9479, 8963 of 1987, 3566, 3174, 293 of 1988, 376, 377, 378, 1204 of 1989, 10046, 9226, 9164, 9451, 9697, 10638, 10645 of 1993 and 5661 of 1984 involving common questions of law and fact are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of order, the question of law canvassed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5661 of 1984 is being discussed.

Gram Panchayat Johar Majra Kalan, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 5661 of 1984, is aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Collector conferring proprietary rights on the Department of Rehabilitation in consequence of letter No. 5(31-GI)/12535-41/68, dated 16.8.1973 and letter dated 25.9.1981 and the mutation sanctioned in favour of Rehabilitation Department. There were certain villages in the composite State of Punjab, now falling in the State of Haryana, which were inhabited by the Muslims, who were proprietors of the said villages and had proportionate undivided interest in the village common land which belonged to the Gram Panchayat. The said land was covered by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as'' the Punjab Act, 1953''). As a result of their proprietary interest in those lands were not liable to be partitioned nor could be alienated and were intended to be used and were in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the proprietors of the other land and the Muslims who had no property/land in the village had no right in the Shamlatdeh lands.

After the partition of the country, in order to manage the property of the Muslims left behind by them, an Act known as East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 14 of 1947 was passed. However, the said Act was replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament, i.e. the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Central Act of 1950''). Property/land left behind by the muslims in the country Was declared to be an evacuee property and was allotted to the displaced persons under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Shamlat Deh lands in which Muslims were having undivided interest were also allotted to the displaced persons. The said lands were allotted by the Rehabilitation Department on the belief that the interest in such lands of the Muslims, who migrated to Pakistan, is evacuee which the Central Government has a right to allot under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. However, the Gram Panchayat had taken a strong objection to the allotment of, said land on the ground that in view of the provisions of Punjab Act, 1953, the interest of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-Deh lands stood extinguished and by virtue of the Act, the lands were placed under the powers of respective Gram Panchayats.

Similar controversy came up before the Supreme Court of India in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors. 1985 P.L.J. 463. The controversy before the Apex Court was whether the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, would prevail in State of Punjab over Administration of Evacuee property in so far Shamlat Deh lands are concerned.

The Supreme Court of India while dealing with the proposition held that the Punjab Act shall prevail in the State of Punjab, and the State Legislature is competent to enact law.

The Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur''s case (supra) has held that, "the effect of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act was not to take away the character of Shamlat-Deh as Shamlat-Deh but only to vest in the custodian such interest at the evacuee possessed in the Shamlat-Deh. The interest which the erstwhile evacuees possessed in the Shamlat-Deh was neither enlarger nor abridged. The land continued to be Shamlat-Deh and it could be the subject of competent State Legislation as Shamlat-Deh. If for the purpose of agrarian reform the Legislature of the State enacted a law as it was competent to do, and consent to which was accorded by the President under Article 31A of the Constitution, there could not be any justification for the arguments that there was any conflict between the Punjab Act and the Central Act. When the Parliament and the State Legislature legislate in their own field with respect to different subjects in this case Evacuee Property and Shamlat-Deh-there could be no reason to conclude that there was necessarily a conflict between the two legislations. The question therefore is whether the Legislature of the State could make a law relating to agrarian reform in respect of property which included property which by a process of law had become vested in the Central Government of the Custodian. There is no reason why the State Legislature should be considered incompetent to make a law relating to agrarian reform, if indeed it is a law relating to agrarian reforms as it has been found to be so, in the present case, even if it affects land vested in the Central Government of the Custodian.

Now reverting to the facts, under the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve and manage the interest of evacuees in all evacuee properties, which will include the Shamlat-Deh. Under the Punjab Act of 1953, the Shamlat Deh lands vest in the Panchayat, which carries with it the right of preservation and management of such lands meaning thereby the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his control over the Shamlat-Deh lands. Under the Punjab Act, the Gram Panchayat have the jurisdiction on such lands.

For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that lands that left behind by the Muslims, who were having undivided interest, vest in the Gram Panchayat and the same cannot be held to be evacuee property.

In this view of matter, writ petitions Nos. 5661 of 1984 6915-66 and 3015-83 are allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

Now coming to the other writ petitions, in these cases, petitioners have purchased the land from the persons, who were allotted the Panchayat lands considering to be evacuee property. Since, in C.W. No. 5661 of 1984, it has been held that such lands vested in the Gram Panchayat, the allotment of lands to the persons who had migrated, was void and the same could not be allotted as the title of the same was never vested with the Custodian. Since the petitioners had purchased the lands from the persons, who had defective title, they are not entitled to claim the land in any manner. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may seek alternative remedy and establish their claims as bonafide purchasers or may recover the price of the land from the persons from whom they had purchased the land.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.