The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) restored the ownership of approximately 280 acres of land in Gurugram to the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad, holding that the land constituted shamilat deh and was vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed a batch of appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat and original defendants, overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had recognized ownership claims of private parties over 436 bighas and 18 biswas of land situated in the uninhabited village of Haiderpur in Gurugram.

“The Division Bench as well as the authorities failed to attach due importance to the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz, which recorded in clear terms that, in Haiderpur, the total area of the shamilat deh was 444 bighas 4 biswas, of which 436 bighas 18 biswas was ghair mumkin pahar, johar, nala, etc., in the possession of makbuja malkan (joint possession). Once this extent of 436 bighas 80 biswas was not shown to be in actual and separate cultivating possession of the proprietors individually, the land invariably constituted shamilat deh and could not be treated as allotted to anyone in particular.”, the Court observed.

Shamilat deh is the land collectively owned by village owners, also called 'Aala Maliks'. It was reserved for common use of the villagers and consisted of grazing grounds, roads, rivers, ponds, cremation grounds, hills, etc.

The controversy stemmed from Mutation No. 131 in 1955, which recorded the land in favour of Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. The mutation was based on governmental directions issued in 1954 and the then prevailing statutory framework governing village common lands.

In 1985, a group of villagers representing 524 claimants initiated proceedings under Section 13A of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, asserting that the land belonged not to the village community as a whole but to three specific pattis.

The litigation travelled through multiple forums over four decades. While revenue authorities initially granted relief to the claimants, the Commissioner later restored the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The High Court subsequently reversed that decision, prompting the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected the claimant's contention against the declaration of the disputed land as common land. The Court said that since no partition of the disputed land took place before 26.01.1950, i.e., the crucial cut-off date prescribed under the statutory scheme, the land would be treated as a village's common land. 

If a valid partition had occurred before that date, subsequent revenue records would not have continued to reflect joint possession through the entry makbuja malkan, the Court said.

“Once the land is taken to be shamilat deh, in which the village proprietors had a right to seek partition, it is not Section 2(g)(3) or Section 2(g)(v) of the Act of 1961 that would have application, but Section 2(g)(iii) or Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act of 1961. In situations coming under these provisions, it is necessary for a claimant seeking exclusion of land from the classification of shamilat deh to prove that such land was partitioned before 26.01.1950 and was brought into the cultivating possession of individual co-sharers as per such partition.”, the Court said.

“We, therefore, find that the plaintiffs in Case No. 18/DRO failed to make out any tenable grounds to interfere with the mutation effected on 13.09.1955 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. The facts demonstrate that the subject land was not shamilat patti but constituted part of the shamilat deh of Haiderpur and though the proprietors, viz., patti Chitru, Ramratan and Medha; patti Sadasukh; and patti Ahmed Ali Khan, had the right to seek partition thereof in accordance with their shares, no such partition took place prior to 26.01.1950 and, in consequence, the shamilat deh of 436 Bighas 18 Biswas continued as such, attracting Section 2(g)(1) of the Act of 1961, and vested in the Gram Panchayat, Wazirabad. It was not necessary in such a situation to even prove that the land in question was used, as per the revenue records, for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village.”, the Court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeals were allowed.

Headnote

Haryana Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 2(g)(1) read with Section 2(g)(iii), Section 2(g)(viii), and Section 4 – Vesting of Shamilat Deh in Gram Panchayat vs. Exclusion Claims – Requirement of Partition and Individual Cultivating Possession Prior to 26.01.1950 – Significance of Revenue Entries 'Hasab Rasad Biswat' and 'Makbuja Malkan' - Land described as shamilat deh in the revenue records automatically vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 2(g)(1) read with Section 4 of the Haryana Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Merely because the revenue entry reads "shamilat deh hasab rasad biswat" followed by the names of distinct pattis, the character of the land as shamilat deh does not change to shamilat patti, nor does it prove private title or exclude it from vesting - The expression "hasab rasad biswat" merely reflects the shareholding of the proprietary body (malkan deh) for the purpose of potential partition - the revenue entry "makbuja malkan" in the cultivator's column denotes joint possession of the proprietary body in common, not individual or separate cultivating possession - To claim exclusion under Section 2(g)(iii) or Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, a claimant must produce proof that the shamilat deh land was partitioned among co-sharers and brought under individual cultivating possession prior to January 26, 1950 - In the absence of evidence showing a formal partition before the cutoff date, the land continues to be shamilat deh and vests in the Panchayat (or its successor Municipal Corporation) regardless of whether it was used for common purposes under Section 2(g)(3) or 2(g)(v). [Relied on Patram v. Gram Panchayat Katwar and others, (2020) 15 SCC 56; Paras 54-64, 106-111]

Section 2(g)(1) vs. Section 2(g)(3) & Section 2(g)(v) – User for Common Purposes – When Inquiry is Necessary - The statutory requirement to establish that land has been used for common purposes of the village or for the benefit of the village community applies specifically when the land in the revenue records is described as shamilat taraf, shamilat patti, shamilat panna, or shamilat thola under Section 2(g)(3) or Section 2(g)(v) - Where the land is directly recorded as shamilat deh in the revenue records and Sharat-wajib-ul-arz, it falls squarely under Section 2(g)(1), and it is not necessary to separately prove that the land was used for common purposes or for the benefit of the village community for it to vest in the Gram Panchayat. [Paras 52- 64, 107- 111]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 / Peppl Act, 1954 – Statutory Vesting – Requirement of Notice to Proprietors - Upon the enactment of the 1953 and 1954 Acts, all rights, title, and interest of proprietors (malkan deh) in lands classified as shamilat deh were statutorily extinguished and vested automatically in the Gram Panchayat - a mutation entry executed in favour of the Gram Panchayat pursuant to statutory vesting cannot be invalidated on the ground of lack of notice or hearing to individual proprietors, as the statutory fiat was absolute and permitted no exemption. [Para 96]

Cause Title: Suraj Bhan and others versus Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashwir Singh Hooda, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Tanuj Dixit, Adv. Ms. Neeta Verma, Adv. Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. A M Dar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Ms. Chamundeswari Pemmasani, Adv. Mr. Shivam Goel, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Govind Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Sareen, Adv. Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. Ms. Arlene Noronha, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Rajput, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Chand Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Abhilash Vashisth, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Dadhich, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashvir Singh Hooda, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Ms. Rekha, Adv. Ms. Neeta Verma, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. T Meikandan, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Bhaimad, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Adv. Mr. Syed Mazahir Hussain Chishty, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR  Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR