Patram v/s Gram Panchayat Katwar [2020] INSC 258 (4 March 2020)

FACTS

1. The disputed land is situated in Haryana. Over a period of time, the cultivable areas were
separated amongst the different owners and in view of caste system which was then
extensively prevalent, separate areas were given in the villages or in different hamlets for
different communities depending not only on caste or religion but sometimes on
profession too. Each division is called a patti.
2. The appellant and his ancestors for more than a century held a patti which has never been
used for the common purpose of the village and has been cultivated by them. This land
has never been used for village common purpose and as per sec 2(g) of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, it cannot be included in the definition of
‘shamilat deh’. The land continues to be in the possession of the appellants or his
ancestors in the jamabandis from the year 1915-1916 till date. The earlier entries in the
column of the ownership which read as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera and Khubi’ were replaced
by the entry ‘Panchyat deh’. The appellant reached the collector of Bhiwani challenging
the change entry in the column of ownership. He lost before the collector as well as the
Commissioner of Hisar Division.
3. The appellant fied a writ petition before the High Court which was rejected by the Court
on the ground that clause (3) of Section 2(g) of the Act which expressly treats “shamlat”,
“tarafs”, “pattis”, “pannas” and “tholas” as separate and distinct, while describing the
nature of the land. Whereas, the exception under clause (v) of the proviso under section
2(g) of the Act notices, “shamlat taraf”, “pattis”, “pannas” and “thola” as falling with the
exception. As per the revenue record of the year 190708, the land under reference has
been described as “shamlat patti”. Therefore, it doesn’t fll within the term hamlat taraf”,
“pattis”, “pannas” and “thola” as has been incorporated in the exception.

MATTER IN ISSUE

 Whether the word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with taraf, patti, pannas, and tholas or only
with taraf in subclause (v) of clause (5) of Section 2(g).
 JUDGEMENT
1. The Court observed that the word ‘Shamilat’ means ‘held in joint possession and
undivided lands which are part and parcel of village’ and when these land are commonly
held by a village proprietary body, they are known as ‘Shamilat deh’ land.
2. ‘Taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ are different terms but have a common strain or
similarity running through them. These are land of group of villagers based on clan, sect,
area etc. After Independence, these classifications are known as clusters/hamlets. The
terms ‘taraf’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ may be different but are akin to patti and also deal with
community of villagers residing separately. Therefore, they have virtually the same
meaning. The section 2(g) includes all lands described as ‘shamilat deh’. In clause (3) of
section 2(g), there is comma after the word ‘shamilat’ where the comma is missing in
clause (5) of section 2(g). The Court views this as an error rather than a deliberate non-
use of comma. his clearly implies that if the land described as ‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’,
‘panna’ and ‘thola’ were not being used for the common purpose, it would not fall within
the meaning of ‘shamilat deh’.
3. It appears to the court that the comma has been left out by mistake, there is comma
between the words ‘shamilat and taraf’. However, there is no comma in the official
gazette notification. A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat
patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’.
4. The purpose of the sections which defines ‘shamilat deh’ is that the land described as
‘shamilat’, ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ not used for the benefit of village will not
deemed as ‘shamilat deh’ From the revenue records produced, it has been shown as
Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’. ‘Dhera & Khubi’ are the ancestors of appellant. The land
always shown as ‘Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi’ and in the cultivation of appellants or his
ancestors. Te land was never used for the benefit of the village communit or for a part of
community.
5. From the above observations, the court held that the land cannot be described as ‘shamilat
deh’ and set aside the judgement of High court and other authorities. The name of
appellants be entered in the ownership column with the entry of ‘shamlat patti’.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175722680/

PATRAM v. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR [2020] INSC 258 (4 March 2020)