Holding

The Government was not justified in evicting the appellant; his possession must be regularised and the land assigned to him under the Nazool Land Rules, subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

Charan Singh, a Scheduled Caste member, was granted a ten‑year lease of uncultivable waste land under the Nazool Land Rules, 1956, which he reclaimed, cultivated and equipped with a tube‑well. After the lease expired in 1972 he remained in possession, but the Government initiated eviction proceedings which were upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that, given the policy of allocating Nazool land to Scheduled Castes for socio‑economic empowerment, the Government could not evict the appellant and was required to regularise his possession and assign the land in accordance with constitutional directives (Arts 38, 39(b), 46, 21). The Court directed the appellant to apply for regularisation within four weeks and the authorities to decide within two months, with conditions prohibiting sub‑letting or alienation. The appeals were disposed of without costs and a contempt petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the eviction of a Scheduled Caste occupant after the expiry of a lease granted under the Nazool Land Rules, 1956, is justified.
Whether the Government is obligated to regularise and assign Nazool land occupied by Scheduled Caste beneficiaries in view of constitutional provisions and policy.
Whether alienation of such land without competent authority is void.

Legislation cited

Indian Contract Acts. 23

Subjects

Nazool Land RulesleaseScheduled Castesevictionregularisationsocio‑economic justiceconstitutional lawland reformeconomic empowermentArticle 21Article 39(b)Article 46

Judgment

CHARAN SINGH ETC. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

NOVEMBER 27, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.] B

Nazool Land Rules, 1956 :

Government land-Grant to appellants-Scheduled Castes--lease of
uncultivable waste land for ten years-Expiry of lease-Appellants reclaimed
the land and also set up tube-wells and cultivated the land-Appellants
c
remained in possession after expiry of lease-£victio11 proceedings-Order of
eviction upheld by High Cowt-Appeal-Contention that instead of treating
the appellants as unauthorised occupant, he should be deemed to have been
assigned the land as per the Nazool Land Rules, 1956-Held, the Government
was not justified in taking eviction proceedings in view of the facts and D
circumstances of the case-The appellants having b,een inducted into posses-
sion reclaimed the land and remained in possession after the expiry of the
lease, the Government is required to regularise their possession and assign the
lands in their possession in accordance with its policy-Direction issued to
authorities to regularise possession of appellants with necessary condi-
E
tions-Vie appellants shall remain in possession until the regularisation is
done and shall enjoy the lands without any sub-letting or alienation thereof

Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 38, 39(b) and 46.

Economic and Social Justice-Duty of State to render-Protection of F
weaker section of society and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from
exploitation.

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr.,
[1995] Supp. 2 SCC 549 and R. Chandevarappa and Ors. v. State of
Kamataka and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 309, referred to. G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15402 of
1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 171of1985. H
243
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A V.C. Mahajan, P.N. Puri, Rajiv Garg, N.D. Garg, A.S. Chahil, Ms. S.
J anani and Manoj Swamp for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Substitution allowed.
B
Leave granted. We have heard learned c~unsel on both sides.

The facts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) N<:>. 8269/94 are sufficient
for disposal of all the matters by common judgment.

c The appellant-Charan Singh, a member of the Scheduled Castes, was
granted 55 Kanals 15 Marlas of the land situated in the revenue estate of
Katkopa in Faridkot District of Punjab State as per the policy. It is now
not in dispute that in 1962, he was granted lease of uncultivable waste land
and he reclaimed the land and also set up tube-well and was cultivating
D the land. The said lease expired in 1972. Thereafter, he was found to be in
unauthorised occupation of such land. Action was taken for his eviction.
He challenged the action in various proceedings. Ultimately, in the im-
pugned order it was held that since he was a lessee and the lease stood
expired by efflux of time, he had no right to remain in possession thereof.
E Accordingly, the order of eviction was upheld by the High Court.

Shri V.C. Mahajan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, con-
tends that since the appellant is a member .of Scheduled Castes the
Government had allotted the and which originally belonged to Maharaja
of Faridkot; a vast extent of land was found in possession of Maharaja of
F which 38,000 was taken from Maharaja and 20159 kanal, 2 marlas was
converted into nazool land; the Government had taken a decision to allot
this nazool land to the members of the Scheduled Castes. He placed before
us the relevant proceedings issued by the Government in that behalf. We
find from the proceedings and orders made from time to time that either
the· nazool land or the Government surplus land was directed to be
G assigned initially to the Co-operative Societies composed of members of
Scheduled Castes and later it was relaxed in favour of the individual
members. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Mahajan that instead of
treating the appellant as unauthorised occupant, he should be deemed to
have been assigned the land as per the Nazool Land Rules, 1956 then in
H vogue. Instead, the appellant was sought to be evicted. Therefore, the
CHARANSINGHv. STATE 245

action taken by the respondent-Government is not correct in law. Shri A
Manoj Swamp, learned counsel for the State, contends that the land was,
though assigned for 10 year;, the Government land. The Government has
got power to assign to the persons as per the procedure in vogue. Pending
the appeals in this Court, possession was taken and the land was auctioned
to the third parties and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any right.
B
Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises
for consideration is : whether the respondents were justified in law to take
action against the appellants for their ejectment? We are of the view that
the Government was not justified in taking that action in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case. Initially, the appellants had come into C
possession by way of a lease granted to them. They remained in possession
of land after the expiry of the lease but reclaimed the land and brought it
under cultivation, obviously after ·incurring considerable expenses and
labour. In Mur/idhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr.
[1995] Supp. 2 sec 549, the question arose : whether the alienation of the D
lands assigned to the Scheduled Tribes was valid in law? In that context,
considering the Preamble, the Directive Principles and the Fundamental
Rights including the right to life assured by Article 21 of the Constitution,
this Court had held that economic empowerment and social justice are
Fundamental Rights of the tribes. The basic aim of the welfare State is the
attainment of substantial degree of social, economic and political equalities E
to achieve self-expression in his work as a citizen as also leisure and social
justice' The distinguishing characteristic of the welfare State is the assump-
tion by community, acting through the State and its responsibilities to
provide the means and opportunities whereby all its members can reach
minimum standard of economic security, social status, culture and health. F
The welfare State, therefore, should take positive measures to assist the
community at large to act in collective responsibility towards its members
to assist them. It was, therefore, held thus :

"Article 21 of the Constitution assures right to life. To make right G
to life meaningful and effective, this Court put up expansive inter-
pretation and brought within its ambit right to education, health,
speedy trial, equal wages for equal work is fundamental rights.
Articles 14, 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination and accord equality.
The Preamble to the Constitution as a socialist republic visualises
to remove economic inequalities and to provide facilities and H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A opportunities for decent standard of living and to protect the T
economic· interest of the weaker segments of the society, in "par-
ticular, Scheduled Castes i.e. Dalits and the Scheduled Tribes i.e.
Tribes and to protect them from "all forms of exploitations."Many
a· day have come and gone after 26.1.1950 but no leaf is turned in
the lives of the poor and the gap between the rich and the poor is
B gradually widening on the brink of being unbridgeable.

Providing adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens and
distribution of the material resources of the community for com-
mon welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits·and Tribes, to fulfil the
c basic needs to bring about a fundamental change in the structure
of the Indian society which was divided by erecting impregnable
walls of separation between the people on grounds of caste, sub-
caste, creed, religion, race, language and sex. Equality of oppor-
tunity and status thereby would become the bedrocks for social
integration. Economic empowerment thereby is the foundation to
D make equality of status, dignity of person and equal opportunity a
truism. The core of the commitment of the Constitution to the
social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the
fundamental rights and directive principles as supplementary and
complementary to each other. The Preamble, fundamental rights
E and directive principles - the trinity - are the conscience of the
Constitution. Political democracy has to be stable. Socio-economic
democracy must take strong roots and should become a way of -·
life. The State, therefore, is enjoined to provide adequate means
of livelihood to the poor, weaker sections of the society, the Dalits
and Tribes and to distribute material resources of the community
F
to them for common welfare etc."

It was accordingly held that right to economic empowerment is a
fundamental right. The alienation of assigned land without a permission of
competent authority was held void.
G •
In R Chandevarappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka and Ors., (1995)
6 SCC 309, this Court was to consider whether alienation of Government
lands allottedto the Scheduled Castes was in violaiion of the Constitutional
objectives under Articles 39(b) and 46. It was held that economic em-
H powerment to the Dalits, Tribes and the poor as a part of distributive
CHARAN SINGH v. STATE 247

justice is a fundamental right; assignment of the land to them under Article A
39(b) was to provide socio-economic justice to the Scheduled Castes. The
alienation of the land, therefore, was held to be in violation of the Con-
stitutional objectives. It was held thus :

"In fact, the cumulative effect of social and economic legislation is
to specify the basic structure. Moreover, the social system shapes
B
the wants and aspirations that its citizens come to have. It deter-
mines in part the sort of persons they want to be as well as the
sort of persons they are. Thus an economic system is not only an
institutional device for satisfying existing wants and needs but a
way of creating and fashioning wants in the future. The economic c
empowerment, therefore, to the poor, dalits and tribes as an
integral ·constitutional scheme of socio-economic democracy is a
way of life of political democracy. Economic empowerment is,
therefor, a basic human right and a fundamental right as part of
right to live, equality and of status and dignity to the poor, weaker D
sections, dalits and tribes.

The prohibition from alienation is to effectuate the constitu-
tional policy of economic empowerment under Articles 14, 21, 38,
39 and 46 read with the Preamble of the Constitution. Accordingly
it was held that refusal to permit alienation is to effectuate the E
constitutional policy. The alienation was declared to be void under
Sections 23 of the Contract Act being violative of the constitutional
scheme of economic empowerment .to accord equality of status,
dignity of persons and economic empowerment."
F
It was further held that providing adequate means of livelihood for
all the citizens and the distribution of the material resources of the com-
munity for common welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits and the Tribes, to
fulfil the basic needs to bring about the fundamental change in the struc-
ture of the Indian society. Equality of opportunity and status would thereby G
become the bedrocks for social integration. Economic empowerment is,
therefore, a basic human right and fundamental right as a part of right to
life to make political democracy stable. Socio-economic democracy would
then take strong roots and become a way of life. The State, therefore, is
enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor and weaker
sections of the society, the Dalits and the Tribes and distribute material H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A resources of the community to them for common welfare. Justice is an
attribute of human conduct and rule of law is indispensable foundation to
establish socio-economic justice. The doctrine of political economy must
include interpretation for the public good which is based on justice that
would guide the people when questions of economic and social policy are
B under consideration.

It is now settled policy of the Government as enjoined under Article
46 of the Constitution and the Directive Principles, particularly Articles 38
and 39(b) and the Preamble of the Constitution that economic and social
justice requires to be done to the weaker sections of the society, in
. C particular to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent
them from social injustice and prevention of all forms of exploitation. In
the light of that constitutional objective of economic empowerment, the
Government have rightly taken the policy to assign the lease to either to a
Cooperative Society composed of the Scheduled Castes or individual mem-
bers of the Scheduled Tribes members, as the case may be, in accordance
D with their policy then in vogue at the rate of Rs. 20 per acre or 90 times
the land revenue, whichever is less. Under these circumstances, the appel-
lants having been inducted into possession reclaimed the land and
remained in possession after the expiry of the lease, the Government is
required to regularize their possession aod assign the lands in their pos- ...
E session in accordance with its policy. The appellants, therefore, are
directed to make necessary application within four weeks from today to the
competent authority and the authorities are directed to regularise their
possession imposing necessary conditions for their continuance in posses-
sion and enjoyment of the same in the light of the constitutional objective
of rendering them socio-economic justice, putting restrictions on sub-let-
F · ting or selling; all the relevant conditions in. that behalf may be imposed so
-
that they remain in possession and enjoy the same to improve their social
and economic status as enjoined under the Constitution. The authorities
also are directed to dispose of the applications within a period of two
months from the date of the receipt of the same. The appellants shall
remain in possession until the regularisation is done and shall enjoy the
G lands without any sub-letting or alienation thereof.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Contempt Peti-
tion is dismissed.

T.N.A. Appeals disposed of.