SHISH RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 05-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SHISH RAM AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF HARYANAAND ORS. 
MAYS, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. 
Sections 2(g} & 5-Shamilat-deh and charand-Leasing of charand 
land by Gram Panchayat Challenged-Held, land could be leased for culti-
vation-limitation-Vesting of land challenged after 34 years-Held, delay 
unexplained-Estoppel-Appellants having taken benefit of lease-hold rights, 
challenging the same-Held, action not bonafide-Punjab Village Common 
Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964-Rule 3(2)(vi) & (XXV). 
D 
Words & Phrases-"Shamilat deh" & "Charand"-Meaning of 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appellants filed writ petition for prohibiting Gram Panchayat from 
leasing out charand land and to reserve said land for grazing catties. High 
Court dismissed writ petition holding that "charand" land is included 
within the definition of"Shamilat-deh". Hence this appeal. 
The appellants contended that reservation of charand land for in-
come of Gram Panchayat violated Article 31A of the C~nstitution and 
breached Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) 
Act, 1961; that the said leasing out/use by Gram Panchayat. contravened 
Rule3(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964; 
that there is distinction between charand and shamilat-deh and charand 
land could not vest with Gram Panchayat. 
The respondents contended that clause (XXV) of Rule 3(2) of the 
1964 Rules authorised Gram Panchayat to lease land for cultivation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The land vesting in the Gram Panchayat can be used for 
any one or more of the purposes specified in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the 
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, leasing out for culti· 
vation being one of the purposes. [1125-C] 
1122 
.. 
• 
)l 
.... 
)' 
SHISH RAM v. STATE 
1123 
Saligram & Ors. v. Maksudan Singh & Ors., (1965.). Current Law 
A 
Journal 711; Klzushi Puri v. State of Ha1yana, (1978) Punjab Law Journal 
78 and Bishambar Dayal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1986) Punjab Law 
Journal 208, approved. 
2. The definition of Shamilat deb under the Punjab Village Common 
Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 provides that it shall include "lands de-
scribed in the revenue record as shamilat deb or (charand-in Haryana) 
excluding abadi deb". Therefore, there does not exist any distinction be-
tween the charand and shamilat deb and the charand could vest with the 
Gram Panchayat under the Act. (1126-H] 
Khushi Puri v. State of Hmyana, (1978) Punjab Law Journal 78, 
approved. 
3. Despite this Court's insistence, the appellants could not refer to 
any averments in the writ petition filed in the High Court regarding the 
alleged violation of Article 31-A of the Constitution. (1127-B] 
Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1967] 2 SCR 165, 
distinguished. 
4. The present petition though filed in a representative capacity, yet 
was not a bonafide action inasmuch as the appellants and their relations 
ha"ing accepted the position of law and earliel' at times taking the benefit 
of lease-hold rights could not have recourse to the legal proceedings after 
having failed to get lease in favour or in favour of their relations. (1127-C] 
5. After the vesting of the land in the Gram Panchayat, none of the 
inhabitants of the village raised any objections regarding its vesting for a 
period of about 34 years. The delay in approaching the court also re-
mained unexplained. (1124-G; 1127-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1941of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.96 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in W.P.(C) No. i7681 of 1995. 
B.S. Malik and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Neeraj K. Jain, Ms. Sonal Jain, Aditya K. Choudhary, U.S. Prasad and 
H 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court delivered by : 
SETHI, ,J. Holding that the land described as "charand" is included 
within the definition of."Sharnilat-deh" as defined under Section 2(g) of the 
B 
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter refened 
to as "the Act") and relying upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the 
C(lSe of Khushi Puri v. State of Hatyana, (1978) Punjab Law Journal 78, the 
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants praying for 
issuance of directions prohibiting the Gram Panchayat from leasing. out the 
c 
charand land and to keep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.