Holding

The Court held that 'shamilat' must be read with all four terms, and that the appellant's land is not 'shamilat deh' and therefore does not vest in the village common body.

Summary

The appellant Patram occupied a parcel of land in Haryana described in revenue records as "Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi" for over a century, but the land was never used for the common purpose of the village. The Gram Panchayat entered the land as "Panchayat Deh" in 1987‑88, leading to a dispute over whether the land qualifies as "shamilat deh" under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 2(g), particularly whether the term "shamilat" in sub‑clause (v) must be read with all four descriptors – taraf, patti, panna, and thola – and concluded that the missing comma was a typographical error, requiring "shamilat" to be read with each term. It held that "shamilat deh" means land held in joint possession and used for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof, and that the appellant's land, not being used for such purpose, does not fall within this definition. Consequently, the land does not vest in the village proprietary body and should be recorded as "shamlat patti". The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision.

Issues considered

Whether the word 'shamilat' in sub‑clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, must be read with all four terms (taraf, patti, panna, thola) or only with taraf.
Whether the land described as 'Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi' and occupied by the appellant qualifies as 'shamilat deh' land under the Act.
Whether the omission of a comma after 'shamilat' in the statutory provision affects its interpretation.
Whether land not used for the common purpose of the village vests in the village proprietary body.

Legislation cited

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961s. 2(g)

Subjects

shamilat dehPunjab Village Common Lands Actstatutory interpretationvillage common landland revenue recordscommunal ownershipcivil appealHaryana

Judgment

1196 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 1196 [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A PATRAM
v.
GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6319 of 2009)
B MARCH 04, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 –
ss.2(g)(3) and 2(g)(5)(v) – Whether the word ‘shamilat’ has to be
read with taraf, patti, pannas, and tholas or only with taraf in sub-
C
clause (v) of clause (5) of s.2(g) – Held: The definition of ‘shamilat
deh’ in s.2(g) of the Act includes all lands described as ‘shamilat
deh’ or charand excluding abadi land – In clause (3) of s.2(g),
there is a comma after the word ‘shamilat’ whereas such comma is
missing in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of s.2(g) – There seems to be
D an error rather than a deliberate non-use of the comma – This is
because clause (3) provides that land described as ‘shamilat’,
‘tarafs’, ‘patties’ ‘pannas’ and ‘tholas’, are to be treated as ‘shamilat
deh’ land only if they are used for the common purpose of the village
– This clearly implies that if the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf ’,
‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ were not being used for the common
E
purpose, it would not fall within the meaning of ‘shamilat deh’ –
Clause (v) is the negative portion of the definition which provides
that certain lands will not be treated as ‘shamilat deh’ and these are
those land which have been described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’,
‘panna’ and ‘thola’ in the revenue record and not used according
F to the revenue record for the benefit of the village community or a
part thereof or for the common purpose of the village – The absence
of the comma after the word ‘shamilat’ is not of any great significance
– In fact, it appears that the comma has been left out by mistake
and in fact a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before
‘taraf ’ in the latter part of the section also – The word ‘shamilat’
G
has to be read with all four- ‘taraf ’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A
land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf ’, ‘shamilat
patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’ – In case the word
shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot
be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become
H ‘shamilat deh’ land.
1196
PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS. 1197

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – A
s.2(g) – Whether land in occupation of appellant is ‘shamilat deh’
land and vests in the village common body – Held: In the revenue
records, the land was shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ –
‘Dhera & Khubi’ were the ancestors of the appellant – The
possession is shown as that of proprietors/self-cultivators and an
B
entry was made in favour of the Panchayat Deh in 1987-1988 –
The land was always shown to be ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’
and in the cultivation of the appellant or his ancestors – Moreover,
the land was never shown to be used for the benefit of the entire
village community or even for a part of the community – The land
cannot be described as ‘Shamilat Deh’ and, therefore, would not C
vest in the village proprietary body – The name of the appellant be
entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 –
‘shamilat deh’ land – Meaning of – Held: The word ‘shamilat’
basically means ‘held in joint possession and undivided lands which D
are part and parcel of a village’ – When these lands are held
commonly by a village proprietary body, they are described as
‘shamilat deh’ land.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 –
‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – Meaning of – Held: ‘Taraf ’, E
‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ are different terms but have a common
strain or similarity running through them – These descriptions are
of land of a group of villagers based on clan, caste, sect, area, etc.
– In British India, the village was divided into different pattis/sections
based upon caste, religion, occupation, etc. of the persons residing
in the village – Patti is described as division of land into separate F
portions or strips in a village – These locations are known as pattis
– Patti is basically, therefore, a small division of the village – The
terms ‘taraf ’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ may be different but are akin to
patti and also deal with community of villagers residing separately
– Therefore, they have virtually the same meaning – It is also G
apparent that a patti can normally be created out of the shamilat
land only when a group of people enjoy some portion of the land
out of the bigger common shareholding that is a patti.

H
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The word ‘shamilat’ basically means ‘held in joint
possession and undivided lands which are part and parcel of a
village’. When these lands are held commonly by a village
proprietary body, they are described as ‘shamilat deh’ land.
B ‘Taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ are different terms but have a
common strain or similarity running through them. These
descriptions are of land of a group of villagers based on clan,
caste, sect, area, etc. In British India, the village was divided
into different pattis/sections based upon caste, religion,
occupation, etc. of the persons residing in the village. Patti is
C described as division of land into separate portions or strips in a
village. These locations are known as pattis. Patti is basically,
therefore, a small division of the village. The terms ‘taraf’, ‘panna’
and ‘thola’ may be different but are akin to patti and also deal
with community of villagers residing separately. Therefore, they
D have virtually the same meaning. [Paras 8, 9][1203-G-H;
1204-A-C]
2. If it is accepted that there is virtually no difference
between ‘taraf ’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ then the task of
interpretation becomes much easier. It is also apparent that a
E patti can normally be created out of the shamilat land only when a
group of people enjoy some portion of the land out of the bigger
common shareholding that is a patti. The definition of ‘shamilat
deh’ in Section 2(g) of the Act includes all lands described as
‘shamilat deh’ or charand excluding abadi land. In clause (3) of
Section 2(g) there is a comma after the word ‘shamilat’ whereas
F such comma is missing in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section
2(g). There seems to be an error rather than a deliberate non-
use of the comma. This is because because clause (3) provides
that land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘tarafs’, ‘patties’ ‘pannas’ and
‘tholas’, are to be treated as ‘shamilat deh’ land only if they are
G used for the common purpose of the village. This clearly implies
that if the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’
and ‘thola’ were not being used for the common purpose, it would
not fall within the meaning of ‘shamilat deh’. [Para 10][1204-C-
F]

H
PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS. 1199

3. Clause (v) is the negative portion of the definition which A
provides that certain lands will not be treated as ‘shamilat deh’
and these are those land which have described as ‘shamilat’,
‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ in the revenue record and not
used according to the revenue record for the benefit of the village
community or a part thereof or for the common purpose of the
B
village. The absence of the comma after the word ‘shamilat’ is
not of any great significance. In fact, it appears that the comma
has been left out by mistake. In various publications, there is a
comma between the words ‘shamilat’ and ‘taraf’. However, there
is no comma in the official publication in the Gazette notification.
It appears that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact a C
comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the
latter part of the section also. The word ‘shamilat’ has to be read
with all four- ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’. A land can be
‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat
panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing
D
from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be
belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat
deh’ land. [Para 11][1204-G-H; 1205-A-B]
4. The purpose of the section which defines ‘shamilat deh’
is that the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’
and ‘thola’ not used for the benefit of the village community will E
not be treated as ‘shamilat deh’. Clause (3) of Section 2(g) is
identical. The purpose is that the land which is described in
revenue records as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’
and used for the benefit of the entire village community or a part
thereof only would vest in the village proprietary body. The words F
‘part thereof’ have been used with a specific purpose in the
background of the meaning of patti. Even if the land is being
utilised for the common purpose of the inhabitants of that ‘taraf’,
‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’, it would be ‘shamilat deh’ even if it is
not used for the benefit of the entire village. However, if the land
is not used either for the benefit of the entire village or for the G
part of the village community which comprises the patti then the
land, cannot be said to be ‘shamilat deh’ land within the meaning
of Section 2(g). From the revenue records produced, the land
has been shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’. ‘Dhera &
Khubi’ are the ancestors of the appellant(s). The possession is H
1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A shown as that of proprietors/self-cultivators and an entry was made
in favour of the Panchayat Deh in 1987-1988. The land was always
shown to be ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation
of the appellant(s) or his ancestors. Moreover, the land was never
shown to be used for the benefit of the entire village community
or even for a part of the community. The land cannot be described
B
as ‘Shamilat Deh’ and, therefore, would not vest in the village
proprietary body. The name of the appellant(s) should be entered
in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.[Paras
12-14][1205-C-H; 1206-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6319
C of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 16757 of 2007.
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra, Neel Mani Pant, Utkarsh,
D Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Prem Malhotra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anurag Tandon, Ms. Kshitiz Rao, Sanjay Jain, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
E
1. The short question involved in this case is whether the land in
occupation of the appellant(s) is ‘shamilat deh’ land within the meaning
of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) and vests in the village common body. The land
in question is situated in Haryana and, therefore, for the purpose of this
F
judgment we shall be referring to the Act as amended and applicable to
the State of Haryana.
2. The contention of the appellant(s) is that the land in dispute
though ‘shamilat’ land, is actually a patti in possession of the appellant(s)
and his ancestors for more than a century and is not being used for the
G common purposes of the village and, therefore, does not fall within the
definition of ‘shamilat deh’ land.
3. In India, land is said to be the true basis for the unity in a village,
supplying the ultimate bond between the residents of the village who
collectively are known as the village community. When settlers went to
H
PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS. 1201
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

new areas and cleared forests or turned barren lands into cultivable A
lands, certain portions of the land were left for common use such as
charand land used for grazing, lands used for wells, watercourses, land
used for common purposes and also for extension of the village residential
area normally known as the abadi. These lands which were reserved
for common purposes were jealously guarded and were in essence the
B
common property of the original settlers and those who had helped them
after clearing the waste and bringing the land under cultivation. The
following observations from Chapter X, which has the heading ‘The
Village Common Land Introduction’ of Sir W.H. Rattigan’s ‘A Digest
on Civil Law for the Punjab’, which is the one of the finest treaties on
customary law of Punjab, are relevant: C
“….Lands so reserved are jealously guarded as the common
property of the original body of settlers who founded the village
or of their descendants, and occasionally also those who assisted
the settlers in clearing the waste and bringing it under cultivation
are recognized as having a share in these reserved plots. Even in D
villages which have adopted separate ownership as to the
cultivated areas, some such plots are usually reserved as village
common, and in pattidari village. It is not unusual to find certain
portions of the waste reserved for the common use of the
proprietors of each patti, and other portions for common village
purposes, the former is designated shamilat-patti and the latter E
shamilat-deh.”
4. Over period of time, the cultivable areas were separated
amongst the different owners and in view of the caste system which
was then extensively prevalent, separate areas in the village or in different
hamlets were provided for different communities based not only on caste F
or religion but sometimes on professions also. To give an example, the
weavers would be put in one area, the potters in another area etc. Each
such division was called a patti.
5. This brings us to the definition of‘shamilat deh’ in Section 2(g)
of the Act. The relevant portion reads as under: G
“2. Definitions. – in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
xxx xxx xxx
(g) “shamilatdeh” includes- H
1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A (1) land described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh
or Charand excluding abadi deh;
(2) shamilat tikkas;
(3) land described in the revenue records as shamilat,
tarafs, patties, pannas and tholas and used according
B to revenue records for the benefit of the village
community or a part thereof or for common purposes
of the village;
(4) xxxx

C (4a) xxxx
(5) xxxx
but does not include land which-
(i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river
action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages
D
subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as
pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records;
xxx xxx xxx
(v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat taraf,
E pattis, pannas and thola and not used according
torevenue records for the benefit of the village
community or a part thereof or for common purposes
of the village;
xxx xxx xxx
F 6. The case of the appellant(s) is that for more than a century he
and his ancestors held a patti which has never been used for the common
purpose of the village and has been cultivated by them. This land has
never been used for common village purpose and in terms of Section
2(g) of the Act cannot be included in the definition of ‘shamilat deh’.
G The land continues to be shown in the possession of the appellant(s) or
his ancestors in the Jamabandis from the year 1915-1916 till date. The
earlier entries in the column of ownership which read as ‘Shamlat Patti
Dhera & Khubi’ were replaced by the entry ‘Panchayat Deh’.
Aggrieved, the appellant(s) approached the Collector, Bhiwani challenging
the change of entry in the column of ownership. The appellant(s) lost
H before the Collector, Bhiwani as well as the Commissioner, Hisar Division.
PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS. 1203
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

He then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, A
which was rejected with the following reasoning:
“While examining the first contention raised by the counsel for
the petitioner, as has been noticed in the forgoing paragraph, it is
necessary to refer to clause (3) of Section 2(g) of the Act extracted
hereinabove, which expressly treats “shamlat”, “tarafs”, “pattis”, B
“pannas” and “tholas” as separate and distinct, while describing
the nature of the land. Whereas, the exception under clause (v)
of the proviso under section 2(g) of the Act notices, “shamlat
taraf”, “pattis”, “pannas” and “thola” as falling with the exception.
As per the revenue record of the year 1907-08, the land under
reference has been described as “shamlat patti”. It does not, C
therefore, fall within the term “shamlat taraf”, “pattis”, “pannas”
and “thola” as has been incorporated in the exception because
“shamlat patti” is not excluded under the clause relied upon by
the learned counsel. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept
that the land under reference falls within Clause (v) of the proviso D
under section 2(g) of the Act.”
7. The aforesaid judgment was delivered on the basis that whereas
in clause (3) of Section 2(g), there is a comma after the word ‘shamilat’,
there is no such comma in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g).
We had requested the parties to provide us the original Gazette notification E
and the definition as quoted by us above is in accord with the Gazette
notification.
8. The issue for consideration is whether the word ‘shamilat’ has
to be read with taraf, patti, pannas, and tholas or only with taraf in
sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g). We must understand what F
is meant by the terms ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’. To understand
this distinction, one must also understand what is ‘shamilat deh’ land.
The word ‘shamilat’ basically means ‘held in joint possession and
undivided lands which are part and parcel of a village’. When these
lands are held commonly by a village proprietary body, they are described
as ‘shamilat deh’ land. G
9. ‘Taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ are different terms but
have a common strain or similarity running through them. These
descriptions are of land of a group of villagers based on clan, caste, sect,
area, etc. In British India, the village was divided into different pattis/
sections based upon caste, religion, occupation, etc. of the persons residing H
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A in the village. Patti is described as division of land into separate portions
or strips in a village. These locations are known as pattis. After
independence since the caste system has been constitutionally abolished,
these classifications refer to different hamlets/clusters where villagers
reside in groups irrespective of their caste. This may be true in law but
not in fact, because unfortunately even today, in mostvillages, ghettoization
B
continues and the people of different communities, castes and religions
live in their earmarked areas or pattis. Patti is basically, therefore, a
small division of the village.The terms ‘taraf’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ may
be different but are akin to patti and also deal with community of villagers
residing separately. Therefore, they have virtually the same meaning.
C 10. If we accept that there is virtually no difference between
‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ then the task of interpretation
becomes much easier. It is also apparent that a patti can normally be
created out of the shamilat land only when a group of people enjoy
some portion of the land out of the bigger common shareholding that is a
D patti. The definition of ‘shamilat deh’ in Section 2(g) of the Actincludes
all lands descried as ‘shamilat deh’ or charand excluding abadi land.
In clause (3) of Section 2(g) there is a comma after the word ‘shamilat’
whereas such comma is missing in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of Section
2(g). We are of the view that there seems to be an error rather than a
deliberate non-use of the comma. We are of this view because clause
E (3) provides that land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘tarafs’, ‘patties’
‘pannas’ and ‘tholas’, are to be treated as ‘shamilat deh’ land only if
they are used for the common purpose of the village. This clearly implies
that if the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and
‘thola’ were not being used for the common purpose, it would not fall
F within the meaning of ‘shamilatdeh’.
11. Clause (v) is the negative portion of the definition which
provides that certain lands will not be treated as ‘shamilatdeh’ and these
are those land which have described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’,
‘panna’ and ‘thola’ in the revenue record and not used according to the
G revenue record for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof
or for the common purpose of the village. In our view, the absence of
the comma after the word ‘shamilat’ is not of any great significance. In
fact, it appears that the comma has been left out by mistake. We may
also note that we find that in various publications, there is a comma
between the words ‘shamilat’ and ‘taraf’. However, there is no comma
H
PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS. 1205
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

in the official publication in the Gazette notification. Keeping in view, A
what we have held above, it appears to us that the absence of a comma
is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after
‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also.The
word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four- ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’
and ‘thola’. A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf ’,
B
‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or‘shamilat thola’. In case the
word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land
cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never
become ‘shamilat deh’ land.
12. The purpose of the section which defines ‘shamilat deh’ is
that the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ C
not used for the benefit of the village community will not be treated as
‘shamilat deh’.Clause (3) of Section 2(g) is identical. The purpose is
that the land which is described in revenue records as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’,
‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ and used for the benefit of the entire village
community or a part thereof only would vest in the village proprietary D
body. The words ‘part thereof’ have been used with a specific purpose
in the background of the meaning of patti which we have dealt with in
detail above. Even if the land is being utilised for the common purpose of
the inhabitants of that ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’, it would be
‘shamilatdeh’ even if it is not used for the benefit of the entire village.
However, if the land is not used either for the benefit of the entire village E
or for the part of the village community which comprises the patti then
the land, in our opinion, cannot be said to be ‘shamilat deh’ land within
the meaning of Section 2(g).
13. From the revenue records produced, we find that the land has
been shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’. ‘Dhera & Khubi’ F
are the ancestors of the appellant(s). The possession is shown as that of
proprietors/self-cultivators and an entry was made in favour of the
Panchayat Deh in 1987-1988. The land was always shown to be
‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of the appellant(s)
or his ancestors. Moreover, the land was never shown to be used for the G
benefit of the entire village community or even for a part of the
community.
14. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the
land cannot be described as ‘Shamilat Deh’ and, therefore, would not
vest in the village proprietary body. Accordingly, we allow the appeal H
1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the
orders of all the authorities below. The name of the appellant(s) be
entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. No
order as to costs.
B
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed

C

D

E

F

G

H