436 bighas of Gurugram land held village common land; Supreme Court confirms vesting in panchayat and rejects private ownership claims

The dispute concerned approximately 436 bighas 18 biswas of land in Haiderpur, a contiguous and uninhabited village adjoining Wazirabad, Gurugram.

The land was described in historical revenue records and the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz as part of the village shamilat deh, although the proprietors of various pattis claimed ownership and possession over it.

Following the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, the land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, on 13 September 1955.

In 1985, representatives claiming through the pattis instituted proceedings under Section 13A of the Haryana Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, contending that the land was private patti land, had not been used for common purposes, and had therefore not vested in the Panchayat.

The Assistant Collector and Collector held that, except for 2 bighas 12 biswas comprising a pond and pathway, the land belonged to the private proprietors.

The Commissioner reversed those findings and restored the mutation in favour of the Panchayat.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Commissioner’s order and restored the findings of the subordinate authorities, holding that the land was not shown to have been used for common purposes and that the mutation in favour of the Panchayat did not confer title.

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by Suraj Bhan and others and by the Gram Panchayat, whose interest subsequently devolved upon the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram.

The Court applied the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 and the Haryana Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, particularly Sections 2(g), 2(h), 3, 4, 13 and 13A.

Under Section 2(g)(1), land described in the revenue records as “shamilat deh” is included within shamilat deh without any additional requirement of proving actual common use; the requirement of proving common use primarily applies to land described as shamilat patti, taraf, panna or thola under Section 2(g)(3) or (v).

Land can be excluded under Sections 2(g)(iii) and 2(g)(viii) only where it is proved that it was partitioned and brought into the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers before 26 January 1950.

The expressions “hasab rasad khewat”, “hasab rasad biswat” and similar entries indicate the shares of proprietors in common land, while “makbuja malkan” denotes joint possession of the proprietary body and does not establish separate individual possession.

The Court relied, inter alia, on Patram v. Gram Panchayat Katwar, which distinguished shamilat deh from shamilat patti and required proof of common use for the latter.

Gram Panchayat, Village Mundhal Khurd v. Amar Singh, which held that land described as shamilat patti does not constitute shamilat deh unless used for common purposes.

Section 161 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 further provides for vesting of shamilat deh situated within the municipal area in the Municipal Corporation.

The Court found that the historical Jamabandis and the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz consistently identified the disputed extent as part of the shamilat deh of Haiderpur, rather than as shamilat patti.

Although the records referred to the pattis and their respective shares, the cultivation column consistently contained the entry “makbuja malkan”, signifying joint possession of the proprietors and not separate cultivating possession by identified individuals.

The Sharat-wajib-ul-arz contemplated a possible future partition of the shamilat deh, but no evidence established that any such partition had actually occurred before 26 January 1950.

Consequently, the land could not be treated as private patti land or excluded under Sections 2(g)(iii) or 2(g)(viii).

Since it was recorded as shamilat deh, Section 2(g)(1) applied, and it was unnecessary for the Panchayat to separately prove that the land was used for common purposes.

The High Court therefore erred by treating the expressions referring to pattis and common possession as proof of private ownership and by requiring proof of common use.

The Court also held that the absence of prior notice before the 1955 mutation was immaterial because vesting under the 1953 Act was statutory and automatic, and the mutation merely recorded that statutory consequence.

Haiderpur and Wazirabad had been included within the same Panchayat area, and the subsequent inclusion of the area within the municipal limits established the Municipal Corporation’s succession to the Panchayat’s interest.

The High Court’s judgment dated 24 August 2007 was set aside.

The mutation dated 13 September 1955 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, was confirmed, and the vesting was held to enure to the benefit of its successor, the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram.

The appeals were allowed; intervention and other pending applications were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.