Decades-Long Land Disputes in Punjab: Supreme Court Upholds 'Shamlat Deh' (village common land) Classifications

Hearing to the cluster of SLPs arising from the village common land disputes from the State of Punjab wherein the judgment on essential question, whether the lands falling within the revenue estate of any village are 'Shamlat Deh' and, therefore, vested with Gram Panchayat or whether occupants had acquired the title or protected rights on various grounds.

Observations and Findings of the Apex Court:

Lease does not confer ownership: The Court explained that no lease granted over 'Shamlat Deh' land confers ownership. In the lead case, Dalip Ram vs. State of Punjab, the appellant argued that the land in his possession was rightly his, having been inherited from his father. It, however, confirmed the findings that the land was 'Shamlat Deh' and the appellant's father was only a lessee and that the continuous possession after the expiry of the lease was an unauthorized occupation.

'Displaced Person' Status Key to Protection: A 1995 amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act provided for protection of allotments or transfers of 'Shamlat Deh' land made prior to July 9, 1985, under Section 2(g)(ii-a). The Court took pains to explain that such protection was extended in the case of 'displaced persons' who were allotted land on a quasi-permanent basis. The Court referred to legal dictionaries regarding the meaning of the terms 'displaced person' and 'quasi-permanent', showing it to be a very narrow exception.

On scrutinizing the transfer Claims, the Apex Court considered transactions other than lease agreements and ruled whether such would amount to 'transfers' under the amended Act. By drawing from the decision of the High Court in the case of Bakshish Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors (Click to Download)., it held that a lease for a fixed duration cannot be equated with a sale or a transfer of rights in the property. It then applied the principle of ejusdem generis-interpreting general words in a list based on the specific words preceding it-to confine "any other manner" to transactions similar in nature to a sale.

The number of petitioners contended that the Collector, a revenue official, had not framed specific issues for adjudication in their cases, and therefore, the proceedings were defective. The Court thus held that "Non-framing of issues is not automatic death of a decision, particularly when parties knew about the central dispute and led their evidence on that basis." The above observation was based on decisions of other High Courts.

The Supreme Court dismissed all the Special Leave Petitions, broadly upholding the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and lower authorities. The Court explained that the claimant of 'Shamlat Deh' land had to establish their right supported by firm documents and establish that the demand falls within the parameters of law laid down. Even long-continued possession is not able to confer the right of ownership. The judgment provides crucial guidance on interpreting the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, particularly regarding the rights of lessees and the scope of the 1995 amendment.

Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Between: Dalip Ram vs the State of Punjab & Ors
DOJ: 02-01-2025