GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE, JAMALPUR versus MALWINDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 09-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

28 
A 
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VIIJ.AGE, JAMALPUR 
v. 
MALWINDER SINGll & ORS. 
JULY 9, 1985 
B 
[Y.v. CHANDRACHUD, CJ,, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, v.o. TULZAPURKAR, 
o. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 31, 31A, 254 Seventh 
Schedule List II Entry No. 18 and List III Entry No. 41. 
Assent of President to law sought for specific purpose -
c 
Efficacy of assent - Limited to that purpose and cannot be exten-
ded beyond it. 
Law made by Parliament - Law made by State Legislature -
Inconsistency - Which law to prevail. 
State Legislature whether competent to make law relating to 
agrarian reform in respect of property which by process of law 
vested in Central Government or Custodian. 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, Section 8 (2) & 
Punjab Village Co111110n Lands (Regulation) Act 1953. 
Section 
3 
Central Act and State Act - Conflict - Whether exists - Evacuee 
E 
property - Vesting of - Shamlat-deh lands nature of - Explained. 
Prior to the partition of India, the Shamlat-deh lands in 
Punjab were owned by the properietors of the other lands in the 
village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat" in the same proportion in 
which 
they owned the other lands. A person who did not own any other 
F 
land in the village could therefore have no proprietary right or 
interest in 
Shamlat-deh lands. 
There were some villages in 
Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslima, with the result 
that al.most all the lands in those villages were owned by Muslim 
,:-roprietors who, as a result of their proprietary interest in 
those lands had a proportionate undivided share in the Shamlat-
G 
deb lands· They had only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh 
lands because such lands were not liable to be partitioned they 
could not be alienated and they were intended to be used and were 
in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the 
proprietors of the other lands. 
Some of the villages in Punjab 
and many in Haryana were inhabited partly by Muslims and partly 
H 
by non-Muslima. 
• 
-
f 
GRAM PANC!IAYAT v, MAI.WINDER SINGH 
29 
After the partition as a result of the unprecedented move-
A 
ment of population, most of the Muslims proprietors migrated to 
Pakistan whereas the non-Muslims continued to live in their 
villages. Multidimensional interlinked problems of administration 
of the properties of those who hsd left the country and rehabili-
tation of those that hsd poured into the country arose. 
The question as to the management and the preservation of 
the property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the 
East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of. Property) Act, 
14 of 
1947. Section 4 · thereof provided that all interests in the 
property whether movable or immovable of the evacuees vested in 
B 
the Custodian appointed by the State Government. 
This Act of the 
c 
State Legislature, was repealed and replaced by an Act passed by 
the Parliament, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. 
That Act came into force on APril 17, 1950. 
As a result of this 
provision the interest of all evacuees which had vested in the 
Custodian under the Punjab· Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in 
the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. 
In the 
D 
villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and from which 
almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the 
Sham.lat-deb lands together with the other proprietary lands were 
declared evacuee property and came to be vested in the Custodian. 
In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims and non-
Muslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested 
in the Custodian and along with that the interest of the proprie-
E 
tors in the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was also vested in the 
Custodian. 
In the writ petitions filed in the High Court the 
controversy was between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the 
Sham.lat-deb lands situated in those villages which fell within . F 
their jurisdiction and, on the other hsnd, the right of Rehabili-
tation Department of the Central Govemment to allot lands of 
thst description, 
to the extent of 
the · evacuee interest 
therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the 
partition of the Country. 
G 
· The contention of the Central Govemment and, of persons to 
whom its Rehabilitation Department has·allotted the Shamlat-deh 
lands on their migration to India, is thst the interest in such 
lands, of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.