The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: A Comprehensive Legal Analysis

Introduction

The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act" or "the Act") stands as a pivotal piece of legislation in the agrarian landscape of Punjab and Haryana. Its primary objective is to provide for the vesting of rights in Shamilat Deh (village common lands) and Bhoodan lands in Gram Panchayats, and to regulate their use, management, and protection. This Act emerged from the necessity to preserve common village resources for the benefit of the entire rural community, particularly in the face of increasing land values and the propensity for encroachments by powerful individuals (State Of Haryana And Others v. Karnal Co-Op. Farmers' Society Limited And Others, 1993 S.C.C. (2) 363; Sukhdev Singh & Others, v. Gram Panchayat Thikriwal & Others, 2011 P&H H.C.). The State of Punjab, being an agrarian state, heavily relies on land as its most valuable natural asset, making the regulation of common lands crucial for its economic and social well-being (Parkash Singh And Others v. Joint Development Commissioner, 2013 P&H H.C.). This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the 1961 Act, examining its historical context, key provisions related to the definition and vesting of Shamilat Deh, mechanisms for adjudication of disputes, and the overarching judicial interpretation that has shaped its application.

Legislative Genesis and Objectives of the 1961 Act

The concept of village common lands, meant for the collective use of the village community for purposes such as pasturage, ponds, threshing floors, and other agricultural operations, is a long-standing feature of rural India (State Of Haryana And Others v. Karnal Co-Op. Farmers' Society Limited And Others, 1993 S.C.C. (2) 363). Post-independence, a rise in land values led to increased instances of influential individuals encroaching upon these common lands, thereby depriving the wider village community of their use (Sukhdev Singh & Others, v. Gram Panchayat Thikriwal & Others, 2011 P&H H.C., citing Karnal Co-op. Farmers' Society). To counter this, and to empower Village Panchayats as units of self-government, several states enacted legislation. In the precursor states, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, and the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, were enacted to vest common lands in their respective Panchayats (State Of Haryana And Others v. Karnal Co-Op. Farmers' Society Limited And Others, 1993 S.C.C. (2) 363; Orion Infrastructure Ltd v. The Commissioner, 2011 P&H H.C.).

Following the reorganisation of states, the existence of two somewhat differing legislative measures was deemed undesirable. Consequently, the State of Punjab enacted the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which came into force on May 4, 1961 (Orion Infrastructure Ltd v. The Commissioner, 2011 P&H H.C.), repealing the earlier 1953 and 1954 Acts (State Of Haryana And Others v. Karnal Co-Op. Farmers' Society Limited And Others, 1993 S.C.C. (2) 363). Section 16 of the 1961 Act provides a 'Repeal and Saving' clause, stipulating that actions taken under the repealed Acts would be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the 1961 Act and would continue in force unless superseded by actions under the 1961 Act (Orion Infrastructure Ltd v. The Commissioner, 2011 P&H H.C.). The overarching objective of the 1961 Act was thus to consolidate the law relating to village common lands and ensure their proper management and utilisation for the common benefit of the village community.

Defining "Shamilat Deh": Scope and Exclusions under Section 2(g)

The cornerstone of the 1961 Act is the definition of "Shamilat Deh" provided in Section 2(g). This definition is inclusive and broad, encompassing various categories of land reserved for common village purposes. According to Section 2(g)(1), Shamilat Deh includes lands described as Shamilat Deh or Charand in revenue records, excluding Shamilat Tikka, and lands described 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. Section 2(g)(4) includes lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village community, such as streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells, or ponds within Abadi Deh or Gorah Deh (Bishamber Dayal Petitioner, v. State Of Haryana And Ors, 1986 P&H H.C.).

Land designated as "Charand" (grazing land) is explicitly included within the definition of Shamilat Deh (Shish Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others, 2000 S.C.C. (6) 84). Similarly, Section 2(g)(5) includes lands in any village described as Banjar Qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records. The crucial factor for Banjar Qadim land is its use for a common purpose; if so used, it vests in the Gram Panchayat (Jarnail Singh (Minor) v. The Joint Director Panchayat, 2012 P&H H.C.).

However, Section 2(g) also enumerates several exclusions from the definition of Shamilat Deh. These include, inter alia:

  • Lands which became Shamilat Deh due to fluvial action after 26th January 1950, except where the river has been canalised (Section 2(g)(i)).
  • Lands partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before 26th January 1950 (Section 2(g)(ii)).
  • Lands acquired by an individual by purchase or exchange in good faith before 26th January 1950 (Section 2(g)(iii)).
  • Private houses or enclosures on Shamilat Deh (Section 2(g)(iv)).
  • Lands in cultivating possession of individuals for more than twelve years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses (often referred to as the "twelve-year rule") (Section 2(g)(viii), as interpreted in cases like Gram Sabha Chachowal . v. Karam Singh, 1992 P&H H.C., though the specific clause number might vary with amendments). The burden to prove that land falls under an exclusion clause lies on the person claiming such exclusion (Jarnail Singh (Minor) v. The Joint Director Panchayat, 2012 P&H H.C.).
  • The definition also considers lands situated outside the Abadi Deh, as noted in GURDIAL SINGH v. ADDL DIR PANCHAYAT & OTS. (2017 P&H H.C.) in relation to Section 2(g)(vi).

Vesting of Shamilat Deh in Gram Panchayats: Section 4 and Constitutional Moorings

Section 4 of the 1961 Act is the operative provision for the vesting of rights in Shamilat Deh in the Gram Panchayat. It mandates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, agreement, instrument, custom, usage, or decree of any court, all rights, title, and interests in land included in Shamilat Deh of any village shall vest in the Panchayat constituted for such village (Orion Infrastructure Ltd v. The Commissioner, 2011 P&H H.C.; Bishamber Dayal Petitioner, v. State Of Haryana And Ors, 1986 P&H H.C.). This vesting is automatic upon the commencement of the Act or upon the constitution of a Panchayat for the village.

The legislative measures for vesting common lands in Panchayats have been recognized as measures of agrarian reform. Such reforms are aimed at eliminating intermediaries, ensuring equitable distribution of land, and promoting agricultural development for the benefit of the rural populace. The Supreme Court, in Gram Panchayat Of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh And Others (1985 S.C.C. (3) 661), while dealing with the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (a precursor to the 1961 Act), held that such state legislation, being a measure of agrarian reform and having received the President's assent, was protected under Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. This protection shields the Act from challenges on the grounds of infringing fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19. The principle that reservation of Charand land for the income of the Gram Panchayat does not violate Article 31-A was also affirmed in Shish Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others (2000 S.C.C. (6) 84). The historical context of allotting land to Gram Panchayats for common purposes during consolidation without compensation to proprietors was also considered in light of Article 31-A in Kishan Singh And Another, v. The State Of Punjab And Others (1960 P&H H.C.).

Management, Utilisation, and Protection of Village Common Lands

Once Shamilat Deh vests in the Gram Panchayat, it holds the land in trust for the benefit of the entire village community. The primary purpose is to ensure that these lands are available for common village needs. The Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors. (S) v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (S) (2011 S.C.C. (11) 396), while not directly interpreting the 1961 Act but dealing with the broader issue of encroachment on Gram Sabha lands (including a village pond in Punjab), strongly condemned the illegal occupation of common lands. The Court emphasized that such lands are inalienable and meant for the collective use of the village community, and unauthorized encroachments cannot be regularized, often highlighting collusion between encroachers and local authorities. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting common resources, a principle that resonates deeply with the spirit of the 1961 Act.

The 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder provide for the management and utilisation of Shamilat Deh by the Panchayat. This includes leasing out land for cultivation to generate income for the Panchayat, which can then be used for village development. However, lands reserved for specific common purposes, such as grazing grounds (Charand), are intended to be maintained for those purposes. In Shish Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others (2000 S.C.C. (6) 84), the appellants challenged the Gram Panchayat's intention to lease out Charand land, arguing it should be reserved for grazing. While the specific challenge was dismissed on other grounds, the case highlights the tension between using common lands for Panchayat income versus preserving them for designated common uses.

Adjudication of Disputes: Title, Eviction, and Jurisdictional Framework

The 1961 Act establishes a specialized mechanism for the adjudication of disputes concerning Shamilat Deh, primarily through the office of the Collector and appellate authorities, while ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts for certain matters.

Determination of Title under Section 11

Section 11 of the 1961 Act empowers the Collector to decide claims of right, title, or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat, or claims that any land has not so vested. Any person claiming such right, or a Panchayat, may submit a statement of claim to the Collector. An appeal against the Collector's order lies to the Commissioner (Parkash Singh And Others v. Joint Development Commissioner, 2013 P&H H.C.). This provision is crucial for resolving disputes regarding the character of land and its rightful ownership or vesting. Proceedings under Section 11 are often initiated when individuals or entities assert that certain lands do not fall within the definition of Shamilat Deh or are covered by one of its exclusion clauses (Gram Panchayat Village Mulepur Petitioner v. Prem Singh And Others S, 2015 P&H H.C.).

Summary Eviction under Section 7

Section 7 of the Act provides the Collector with the power to summarily eject persons who are in unauthorized occupation of Shamilat Deh. This is a vital tool for Panchayats to reclaim common lands from encroachers. The Collector, upon application by the Panchayat or on his own motion, can order eviction after giving the concerned person an opportunity to be heard. In Gram Panchayat Of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh And Others (2000 S.C.C. (7) 543), the Supreme Court dealt with a case where an eviction order under Section 7 was challenged on the basis of an earlier collusive decree obtained by the occupants against the Panchayat. The Court held that the statutory authorities under the 1961 Act could ignore such a collusive decree and were not required to have it set aside by a separate civil suit first, thereby overruling a contrary Full Bench view of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The authority of a Social Education and Panchayat Officer to file an appeal on behalf of the Gram Panchayat in Section 7 proceedings has also been upheld (Gram Panchayat Nalini v. State Of Punjab, 1992 P.L.J. 693).

Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction under Section 13

Section 13 of the 1961 Act imposes a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain or adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or other immovable property or any right or interest in such land vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under the Act (Parkash Singh And Others v. Joint Development Commissioner, 2013 P&H H.C.; Gram Sabha Chachowal . v. Karam Singh, 1992 P&H H.C.). This ouster of jurisdiction is intended to ensure that disputes concerning Shamilat Deh are adjudicated by the specialized authorities under the Act. However, the bar is not absolute. It has been held that suits for injunction to protect possession against threatened illegal dispossession, where the title of the Panchayat is not disputed or where the plaintiff claims possessory rights without challenging the vesting, may be maintainable in civil courts (Raj Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Village Nindana, 2013 P&H H.C.). The question of title to Shamilat Deh is to be decided by the Collector under the 1961 Act, and not by consolidation authorities under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Gram Panchayat v. Additional Director, Consolidation Punjab, 1999 P&H H.C. Online 775).

Adjudication of Rights under Section 13-A

Section 13-A, introduced by amendment, further clarifies the procedure for adjudication of rights, title or interest in Shamilat Deh. It provides that any person or a Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat may file a suit for adjudication before the Collector. This reinforces the Collector's role as the primary adjudicatory authority for such disputes (DAYA NAND v. RAM DIYA, 2024 P&H H.C.; JAS KUMAR AND ORS v. GAGANDEEP SINGH AND ORS, 2023 P&H H.C.).

Interplay with Other Laws and Special Circumstances

The application of the 1961 Act can be affected by other statutes or specific circumstances. For instance, if a Sabha area of a Gram Panchayat is included within municipal limits, the Gram Panchayat ceases to exist, and its assets and liabilities are disposed of in the prescribed manner. In such a scenario, proceedings under Section 7 or Section 7-A of the 1961 Act cannot continue, as the Panchayat can no longer be put in possession (Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others, 2013 P&H H.C.). The Municipal Council may then have to resort to remedies under other laws, such as the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, for eviction.

The interaction between the 1961 Act (a special enactment for Shamilat Deh) and the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 (a general enactment for public premises) has also been a subject of judicial consideration, particularly concerning whether Shamilat Deh can be branded as "public premises" for eviction purposes under the 1973 Act (GURDIAL SINGH v. ADDL DIR PANCHAYAT & OTS., 2017 P&H H.C.). Furthermore, when Shamilat Deh land vesting in a Gram Panchayat is acquired under other statutes, such as the National Highways Act, 1956, disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation between the Panchayat and individuals claiming proprietary rights may arise, requiring reference to civil courts (Surinder Kumar & Ors…. S v. State Of Punjab & Ors…. S, 2013 P&H H.C.).

Judicial Pronouncements: Upholding the Sanctity of Common Lands

The judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting the provisions of the 1961 Act and upholding its underlying objectives. As seen in Jagpal Singh & Ors. (S) v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (S) (2011 S.C.C. (11) 396), the Supreme Court has taken a very strong stance against the encroachment of common village lands, emphasizing their importance for the community and directing state governments to formulate schemes for eviction and prevention of such encroachments. This judicial activism serves to reinforce the legislative intent of preserving these vital resources for public use.

Courts have consistently interpreted the Act to ensure that the vesting of Shamilat Deh in Panchayats is effective and that attempts to illegally occupy or alienate such lands are thwarted. The decision in Gram Panchayat Of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh And Others (2000 S.C.C. (7) 543) regarding collusive decrees is a testament to the judiciary's approach in preventing the Act's provisions from being circumvented through fraudulent means. The emphasis on the Collector's exclusive jurisdiction for title determination under Section 11 and Section 13-A, and the bar under Section 13, also reflects the intent to have these specialized matters dealt with by revenue authorities who possess the requisite expertise in land records and local customs.

Conclusion

The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, is a critical piece of social legislation aimed at safeguarding the common property resources of village communities in Punjab and, by extension, Haryana. It provides a comprehensive framework for the vesting, management, and adjudication of disputes related to Shamilat Deh. Through its various provisions, particularly concerning the definition of Shamilat Deh, its vesting in Gram Panchayats, and the specialized machinery for dispute resolution, the Act seeks to ensure that these lands are utilized for the collective benefit of the rural populace and are protected from unauthorized occupation and exploitation.

Judicial interpretation has consistently reinforced the spirit of the Act, emphasizing the sanctity of common lands and the need for their preservation. Despite the robust legal framework, challenges such as encroachments, delays in adjudication, and complexities arising from the interplay with other laws persist. Nevertheless, the 1961 Act remains a cornerstone of rural governance and resource management, reflecting a legislative commitment to preserving communal heritage and promoting equitable access to common village resources for sustainable rural development.