‘Lease’ & ‘Allotment’ Are Different; Person Who Got Possession Of Land Via Lease Can’t Be Heard To Challenge Title Or Ownership Of Panchayat: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that, ‘lease’ and ‘allotment’ are different and a person who got possession of a land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned.
The Court was deciding a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) involving a common question that whether the lands were Shamlat deh, allotted (if at all allotment was there) on quasi-permanent basis to displaced person(s) or whether they were Shamlat deh otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “In Dalip Ram’s case (supra), which was dismissed as per orders in this judgment, we have held that ‘lease’ and ‘allotment’ are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease.”
The Bench said that, non-framing of issues by itself will not make a decision a nullity, if the parties to the lis understood and adduced evidence on the issues actually involved in the matter.
AOR P. N. Puri represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocate G.S. Kalra represented the Respondents.
In the lead case, the Petitioner challenged the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as it rejected his challenge against the Order of the Financial Commissioner. The Respondent had allowed an Application for eviction of the Petitioner from a land. In the said Application, the Gram Panchayat stated that the Petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the land belonging to Panchayat which was leased out to his father even after the expiry of the lease period.
Further it was stated that, even thereafter, the Petitioner neither handed over the possession nor paid lease money. In the Appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Commissioner confirmed the Order and rejected his contentions. The Petitioner had earlier approached the High Court but his Writ Petition was dismissed. He also then filed SLP and the impugned Order was set aside and the case was remitted to the High Court. As the case was not decided in the Petitioner’s favour, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In our considered view, the High Court was perfectly correct in holding that the unsuccessful attempt on the part of the respondent-Panchayat in the proceeding under Section 7 of the Act cannot be a reason for holding that they would or should act as res judicata to challenge an adverse order against them under Section 11 of the Act.”
The Court added that the High Court observed and held that the entries of Shamlat deh prior to consolidation, irrespective of any nomenclature would definitely vest the land in Gram Panchayat in terms of Sections 2 (g)(1) and 4 of the Act, and therefore, the words ‘Shamlat deh’ simpliciter followed by any other entry would vest with the Gram Panchayat under the Act.
“As we observed and found earlier in the case in hand, virtually, there is no necessity to go into such questions as the very precise case of the petitioner is that he got the land(s) in question on lease from the respondent-Panchayat. That apart, independent of that, the other case put-forth by the petitioner is that the title of the subject lands were declared in his favour in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Act. But then, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had challenged the entries in the jamabandies of the year concerned qua the land in question that it is Shamlat deh and that in relation to the same he/the predecessor was a lessee”, it further remarked.
The Court was of the view that the Petitioner who got in possession of the subject land(s) based on a lease cannot be heard to contend that he ceases to be a lessee and in terms of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA), the transaction in respect of the land in question, could only be styled as lease.
“While considering the question of benefit flowing from the amendment, Section 2 (g) of the Act by inserting (ii-a) to it, we have already found that the land in question should have been Shamlat deh and the person claiming the benefit should establish that it was allotted to him on permanent basis or transferred by way of sale or in any other manner or transferred in any other manner on permanent basis with rights over the same”, it also said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP and refused to interfere in the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Dalip Ram v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 12)
Appearance:
Petitioners: AORs P. N. Puri, R. C. Kaushik, Satyendra Kumar, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Amita Gupta, S. Janani, Ajay Kumar Singh, V. Elanchezhiyan, Ravi Panwar, Advocates Reeta Dewan Puri, Smriti Puri, Rajiv Kataria, Debjani Das Purkayastha, Sunita Punia, Shish Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Atul, Vedant Pradhan, Hardik Giri, and Pranav Singh Gautam.
Respondents: Senior Advocate G.S. Kalra, AORs R. C. Kaushik, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Manju Jetley, Kuldip Singh, Siddhant Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Ajay Kumar Singh, Yadav Narender Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Nupur Kumar, Kheyali Singh, Shashi Kiran, Advocates Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Ritika Raj, Niharika Dwivedi, Amit Kumar Chawla, Shubham Rajhans, Mahi Pal Singh, Manisha Chawla, Ishank Ranjan, Shashank Kumar, Varun Varma Srivastava, and Prafull Bhardwaj.
