NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that in respect of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling limits under a Punjab law, it is the management and control alone which would vest with the Panchayat and not the title.
The top court said that the management and control include leasing of land and use of the land by non-proprietors, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, etc. which is for the benefit of the village community.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian passed the verdict on a batch of appeals against the full bench verdict of Punjab and Haryana High Court which examined the legality of sub-section 6 of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
The bench, however, clarified that vesting under Section 4 of the Act would be limited to management and control of the land with Panchayat.
"It is pertinent to note here that for the land taken from the proprietors by applying pro-rata cut from the permissible ceiling limits of the proprietors, management, and control alone vests with the Panchayat but such vesting of management and control is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the present requirements but the future requirements as well," the bench said in its 98-page verdict.
It said that such land would not be available for sale so as to confer the title on the purchaser in view of the fact that the Panchayat is not the full owner of the land but while exercising control and management, it is duty-bound to safeguard the land for the benefit of the village community.
"The Panchayat will not have title over the land but as part of management and control, the panchayat is at liberty to put the land for use for common purposes. Such common purposes as defined under Section 2(bb) of the 1948 Act are interchangeable and also can be used for any other common purpose. It is to be noted that common purposes are ever-evolving; they are not fixed in time," it said.
The bench said that with the change in time and expectations of the village community, common purposes have to be given wider meaning in view of the object of such reservation of land.
"Therefore, though the Panchayat has management and control in respect of the land which was carved out from the land falling within the ceiling limits, the Panchayat would have complete control over the said part of the land. The word vesting' appearing in Section 4 has to be read down to mean that management and control of such land alone would vest in the Panchayat," it said.
The bench said that though the land vests with the Panchayat, such land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit of the village community.
"Such benefits to the village community are not limited to traditional benefits of the village community i.e., land for grazing of cattle, dumping of dead animals, schools and hospitals but also the activities which would be required in future, keeping in view the modernization of the village economy which will ultimately for the benefit of the village community," it said.
It said, "Therefore, we affirm the conclusions No (i) and (ii) arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II case, though for different reasons."
The top court noted that conclusion no.(iii) by the Full Bench in Jai Singh-II, it was observed that the land which has been cultivated by the proprietors on pro-rata cut and which has not been earmarked for any common purpose, commonly called as Bachat land (Land left out which was carved out by imposing a cut on proprietors which was reserved for common purposes during Consolidation), shall not vest with the Gram Panchayat.
It said, "We are unable to agree with such a conclusion. The land reserved for common purposes was reserved for the requirement of the village community in praesenti (in the present time) and in the future. If the land has not been put to use for any common purpose soon after the consolidation and/or thereafter, it cannot be said to be Bachat land. The landmass is not going to increase but the requirement of the people and the expectations of the village community is ever-expanding."
It said that therefore, even if any land reserved for common purposes is not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot be termed as a Bachat land and thus open for the purpose of repartition amongst the proprietors sought.
"Keeping in view of the above discussions, we find that the land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use," the bench said.
It said that the counsel for the parties could not point out any particular timeline during which the common purposes have to be accomplished.
"Since common purpose' is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in the requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution," the bench said, adding that therefore, the conclusion no.(iii) arrived at by the High Court is set aside as unutilized land is not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors.
The top court said that if the whole or part of the Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality.