PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) was brought into force in the historical context of the shamlat land. The common land is stated to have been owned by the proprietors and was used by all the proprietors for grazing and fire wood etc. The result was that non -proprietors did not have any rights. Not only that, it is primarily to assist in establishment of certain rights of these non -proprietors that the 1953 Act was brought into force as apparent from the statement of object and reasons. It has been recorded therein that when the villages were originally founded it is believed that the shamlat was really meant for use of the inhabitants of the village, while the position at the time of enactment of the 1953 Act was that the shamlat became property of the proprietary body of a village, while the rights of non -proprietors were in the shape of grants for certain purposes. These non -proprietors had settled in the villages and had been rendering essential services to the proprietary body in matters relating to farm operations and yet did not enjoy equal rights in the shamlat lands. It became, thus, detrimental over a period of time to these non -proprietors especially the Harijans. Such people did not even have proprietary rights in the sites of their residential houses resulting in dis -contentment and it is with a view to give these classes of residents in the villages an opportunity to live with security and self -respect that the 1953 Act was enacted. This Act was thereafter repealed and substituted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In exercise of powers under Section 15 of the said Act, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were notified as applicable to Punjab.

(2.) WE now proceed to deal with the salient provisions of the said Act and the Rules in the context of the three petitions which have been filed before us the facts of which will be recapitulated thereafter. This is so as there are common issues arising qua interpretation of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. LEGAL POSITION : -

(3.) WE may notice at this stage that there have been certain crucial amendments both in the Act and the Rules in the year 1976. Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 carried out the amendments to the said Act. The insertion of the third proviso to sub section (1) as also the insertion of sub section (5) is as a result thereof. The proportional utilization and restriction on use of the shamlat deh land, thus, forms an integral part of the third proviso to sub section (1). Sub section (5) begins with a "notwithstanding" clause qua the preceding sub sections and, thus, permits the shamlat deh land vested in the Panchayat to be dealt with by way of sale, gift or exchange, but to the extent of fifty per cent of the total culturable area. In order to keep a check on land, which may be dealt with by the Panchayat, a complete mechanism has been provided under Section 10 -A of the said Act which empowers the Collector to cancel or vary leases etc. of lands vested in Panchayat. Thus, any of the aggrieved persons could actually have moved the Collector under Section 10 -A of the said Act, but we are faced with these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in effect seeking reliefs of cancellation of leases.