REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 /2011 @ SLP(C) No.3109/2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)  CC No. 19869 of 2010)

Jagpal Singh & Ors. .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

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  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  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  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.

4. The protection of commons rights of the villagers were so zealously  

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  such  vesting.  Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya  vs.  

2

Paladuge Anjayya, 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court observed :

“It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of  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 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, is that in large  

parts  of  the  country  this  common  village  land  has  been  grabbed  by  

unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout,  

and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common  

use of the people 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  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.   

3

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.

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 occupants of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310,  

Khasra No. 369 (84-4) in the said village.  They appear to 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 (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) 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  

4

aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue 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 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 occupants, the  

Collector, 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  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 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  

5

had not even opposed the order passed by the 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  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.  The matter had gone  

to the officials for removal of these illegal constructions, but no action was  

taken for reasons best known 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 respondents (appellants herein) illegally 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 Court which was dismissed  

6

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  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  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 illegalities must not be permitted  

because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of  

villagers of the 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  

regularized.    We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer  

merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.     

7

14. In M.I. 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 the cost of over Rs.100 crores.  In  Friends  

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 with even greater force in  

cases of encroachment of village common land.  Ordinarily, compounding in  

such  cases  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 village e.g. running a  

school 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 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 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the  

Madras High Court in  L. Krishnan  vs.  State of Tamil Nadu,  2005(4)  

8

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 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 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.

18. Over  the  last  few  decades,  however,  most  of  these  ponds  in  our  

country have been filled with earth and built upon 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/Gram  Panchayat  

officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not  

9

used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain  

individuals.  The time has come when these malpractices must stop.    

20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings 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 with the original revenue record showing the land as 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.    

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 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  

1

this  purpose  the  Chief  Secretaries  of  all  State  Governments/Union  

Territories in 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 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  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 and prompt compliance  

of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.

1

24. Although we have dismissed this appeal, it shall be listed before this  

Court  from time to time (on dates  fixed by us),  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.

…………………….….J. [Markandey Katju]

…………………..……J. [Gyan Sudha Mishra]    

New Delhi; January 28, 2011

1