JAGPAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                            .
                        [2011] 2 S.C.R. 250

A                     JAGPAL SINGH & ORS.
                                  v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011)
                        JANUARY 28, 2011
B
           [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA
                      MISRA, JJ.]

         Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
C   - s. 7 - Gram Sabha land, gram panchayat land, sham/at deh,
    mandeveli/ poramboke land - Illegal/Unauthorized
    occupation - Land recorded as a village pond - Unauthorized
    occupation by appellants and construction of houses therein
    - Application uls. 7 to evict the appellants - Collector
D   regularizing the possession of unauthorized occupants -
    Commissioner as also the High Court setting aside the same
    - On appeal, held: Appellants were trespassers who illegally
    encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle
    power/money power and in collusion with the officials and the
E   Gram Panchayat - Letter of the State Government permitting
    regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants
    not valid - Regularizing such illegalities must not be
    permitted - Gram Sabha land must be kept for the common
    use of villagers -· Common interest of the villagers cannot be
F   allowed to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation
    subsisted for many years - Appellants directed to vacate the
    land occupied by them illegally - Direction also issued to all
    State Government to prepare Scheme for eviction of illegal/
    unauthorized occupants of such land.

G       The Gram Panchayat, Rohar jagir filed an application
    under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands
    (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants alleging that
    the appellants had unauthorizedly occupied the land
    recorded as village pond which belongs to the Gram
H                                250
"'JAGPAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB &            251
                   ORS.
Panchayat, and made constructio·ns. The Collector            A
regularized the illegality holding that it would not be in
public interest to dispossess the appellants. It directed
the Gram Panchayat to recover the cost of the land as per
the Collector's rates from the appellants. On appeal
against the or~er of the Collector, the Commissioner held    B
that the said village pond has been used for the common
purpose of the villagers and cannot be allowed to be
encroached upon by any private respondents; and that
the illegal construction of the houses at the site was
without jurisdiction and without the resolution of the       c
Gram Panchayat. The High Court upheld the order
passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the appellants
filed the instant appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 A Writ Petition was filed before the Single
Judge of the High Court. The appellants were trespassers
who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land
by using muscle power/money power and in collusion
with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. E
Such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned.
Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in
question they must be .ordered to remove their
constructions, and. pos'session of the land in question
mus.t be handed back to the Gram Panchayat~ F
Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted
beca.use it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for
the common use of villagers of the village. The letter of
the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of
possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. G
Such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
Such illegalities cannot be regularized. The common
interest of the villagers cannot be allowed to suffer merely
because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for
many years. [Para 13] [257-D-G]
                                                             H
    252       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A         M.L. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu 1999 (6)
    SCC 464; Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State
    of Orissa 2004 (8) SCC 7.33 - relied on.
       1.2 The instant case is a case of land recorded as a
9 village  pond. The appellants are directed to vacate the
  land they had illegally occupied. [Para 16] [258·E·F]

         Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi AIR 2001 SC 3215; L.
    Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras -
    relied on.
c
        2. In many States, the Government Orders have been
    issued by the State Government permitting allotment of
    Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial
    enterprises on payment of some money. All such
o   Government Orders are illegal, and should be ignored.
    [Para 15] [258-D]

        3. Our ancestors knew that in certain years there may
  be droughts or water shortages for some other reason,
  and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe
E in etc. Thus, they built a pond attached to every village,
  a tank attached to every temple, etc. these were their
  traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served
  them for thousands of years. Over the last few decades,
  however, most of these ponds in the country have been
F filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus,
  destroying their original character. This has contributed
  to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds
  are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen
  for fisheries In collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat
G officials, and even this money collected from these so·
  called auctions are not used for the common benefit of
  the villagers but misappropriated by certain individua.ls.
  The time has come when these malpractices must stop.
  The time has now come to review all the orders by which
H the common village land has been grabbed by such
  JAGPAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB &                 253
                   ORS.
fraudulent practices. [Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20) [258-G-H;        A
259-A-E]

     4. All the State Governments in the country are
directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction
of illegal/unauthorized occupants· of Gram Sabha/Gram            8
Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be
restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the
common use of village(s of the village. [Para 22] [259-F-
G] ·
                       Case Law Reference:                       c
       1999 (6) sec 464         Referred to.          Para 14

       2004 (8) sec 733         Referred to.          Para 14

       2001 SC 3215             Referred to.          Para 16    D
       2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras Referred to.             Para 16

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1132 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 21.5.2010 of the High        E
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 668 of
2010 (0 & M).

    R.K. Kapoor, Neelam Sharma, H.C. Pant (for Anis Ahmed
Khan) for the Appellants.                                        F

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.              G

     3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands
inhering in the village communities in India, variously called
gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, (in many North Indian
States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and             H
    254        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc.,
  depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in.
  the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of
  the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes
  e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested
B grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan
  for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands,
  water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc.
  These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which
  handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram
c Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order
  that their status as community land be preserved. There were
  no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram
  Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to
  landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/
  tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.
0
       4. The protection of commons rights of the villagers were
  so zealoualy protected that some legislation expressly
  mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State
  did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by
E such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya vs.
  Pa/aduge Anjayya, 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court
  observed:

                 "It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of
F         the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That
          by itself does not mean that the rights of the community
          over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited
          to any provision of law under which the rights of the
          community over those lands can be said to have been
          taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands
G
          were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights
          cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3) of
          the Estates Abolition Act."

        5.. What we have witnessed since Independence, however,
H is that in large parts of the country this common village land has
      JAGPAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB &                     255
             ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
  be.en grabbed by unscrupulous persons using niuscle power1               A
  money power or political clout, and in many States now there
1
  is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people
1 of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power
' and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically
  encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally              B
  inconsistent with its original character, for personal
  aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was
  done with active connivance of the State authorities and local
  powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring
  example of this lamentable state of affairs.                             c
      6. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
  judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
. Court dated 21.5.2010. By that judgment the Division Bench
  upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High
  Court dated 10.2.2010.                                                   D
          7. It is undisputed that the appellants herein are neither the
    owner nor the tenants of the land in question which is recorded
    as a pond situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District
    Patiala. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized                 E
    occupants of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310,
    Khasra No. 369 (84-4) in the said village. They appearto have
    filled in the village pond and made constructions thereon.

         8. The Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir filed an application
    under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands                     F
    (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants herein who had
    unauthorizedly occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition the
    Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir alleged that the land in question
    belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Rohar as is clear from the
    revenue records. However, the respondents (appellants herein)          G
    forcibly occupied the said land and started making
    constructions thereon illegally. An application was consequently
    moved before the Deputy Commissioner informing him about
    the illegal acts of the respondents (appellants herein) and
    stating that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue             H
    256      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A records as Gair Mumkin Toba i.e. a village pond. The villagers
  have been using the same, since drain water of the village falls
  into the pond, and it is used by the cattle of the village for
  drinking and bathing. Since the respondents (appellants herein)
  Illegally occupied the said land an FIR was filed against them
B but to no avaiL It was alleged that the respondents (appellants
  herein) have illegally raised constructions on the said land, and
  the lower officials of the department and even the Gram
  Panchayat colluded with them.
       9. Instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized
C occupants, the Colleictor, Patiala surprisingly held that it would
  not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead
  directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover the cost of the
  land as per the Collector's rates from the respondents
  (appellants herein). Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing
D this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants
  herein) have spent huge money on constructing houses on the
  said land.
       10. Some persons then appealed to the learned
E Commissioner against the said order of the Collector dated
  13.9.2005 and this appeal was allowed on 12.12.2007. The
  Learned Commissioner held that it was clear that-the Gram
  Panchayat was colluding with these respondents (appellants
  herein), and it had not even opposed the order passed by the
F Collector in which directions were issued to the Gram
  Panchayat to transfer the property to these persons, nor filed
  an appeal against the Collector's order.
         11. The learned Commissioner held that the village pond
  has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and
G cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by any private
  respondents, whether Jagirdars or anybody else. Photographs
  submitted before the learned Commissioner showed that recent
  attempts had been made to encroach into the village pond by
  filling it up with earth and making new constructions thereon.
H The matter had gone to the officials for removal of these illegal
      JAGPAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB &                   257
             ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
    constructions, but no action was taken for reasons best known       A
    to the authorities at that time. The learned Commissioner was
    of the view that regularizing such kind of illegal encroachment
    is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. The learned
    Commissioner held that Khasra No. 369 (84-4) is a part of the
    village pond, and the respondent$ (appellants herein) illegally     B
    constructed their houses at the site without any jurisdiction and
    without even any resolution of the Gram Panchayat.
          12. Against the order of the learned Commissioner a Writ
    Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of the High C
    Court which was dismissed by the judgment dated 10.2.2010,
    and the judgment of learned Single Judge has been affirmed
    in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this
    appeal.
        13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein D
  were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram
   Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in
  collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat.
  We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must
  not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on E
  the land in question they must be ordered to remove their
  constructions, and possession of the land in question must be
, handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such
I
  illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha
  land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the F
  village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab .
  permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized
  occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters
  are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such
  illegalities cannot be re~larized. We cannot allowthe common G
  interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the
  unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.          ·
        14. In M./. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu,
    1999(6) SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of
    a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at        H
    258       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 2 S.C.R. .


A the cost of over Rs.100 cro,-eS. lrtFrJe(/{/S Colony Development
  Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 this Court
  held that even where the law permits compounding of
  unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be
  by way of an exception. In our opinion this decision will apply
B with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village
  common land. Ordinarily, compounding In such ~ses should
  only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless
  labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
  or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the
c village e.g. running a schoul for the villagers, or a dispensary
  for them.
        15. In many states Government orders have been issued
  by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha
  land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment
D of some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are
  illegal, and should be ignored.
        16. The present is a case of land recorded as a village
  pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi, AIR
E 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L.
  Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held
  that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted
  to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose.
  The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had
F illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house.
  We pass a similar order in this case.
       17. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors
  were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be
  droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water
G was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence
  they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to
  every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water
  harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.
H         18. Over the last few decades, however, most of these
  JAGPAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB &                   259
         ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.)
1ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon     A
by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This
has contributed to the water shortages in the country.
     19. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away
prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/   B
Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from
these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit
of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The
time has come when these malpr(lctices must stop.

     20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings         C
Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands
either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by
forging orders purported to have been passed by
Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be
compared wjth the original revenue record showing the land as        D
Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded
out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The
time has now come to review all these orders by which the
common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent
practices.                                                           E.
    21. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this
appeal and it is dismissed.

     22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all
the State Governments in the country that they should prepare        F
schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these
must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the
common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the
Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in      G
India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other
senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should
provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after
giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long
duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in           H
   260       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 2 S.C.R.

A making constructions thereon or political connections must not
  be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for
  regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only
  be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been
  granted under some Government notification to landless
B labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
  or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public
  utility on the land.
        23. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries
  of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict
C and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance
  reports to this Court from time to time.
        24. Although we have dismissed this appeal, it shall be
  listed before this Court from time to time (on dates fixed by us),
D so that we can monitor implementation of our directions herein.
  List again before us on 3.5.2011 on which date all Chief
  Secretaries in India will submit their reports.
    N.J.                                        Appeal dismissed.