High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared as “unconstitutional” a removal of notice clause of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, noting that owners of riparian lands will be entitled to alluvial deposits

The Court said that striking down Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 196, is likely to be declared ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.

In 1976, the notification had deleted section 2(g)(i), which stated that Shamilat deh (community use land) shall not include land that “becomes or has become shamilat deh as a result of river action or is reserved as shamilat. in villages subject to river action, except that shamilat deh is included in the revenue records as a pasture, pond or playground.

A division bank of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra said, “Deletion provision has completely abridged the rights of riparian owners over the alluvial deposits, as done on the banks of the river where they have ownership rights, and has also taken away the rights of the riparian owners to claim ownership over those deposits. lands previously submerged in the rivers, and exposed to the sky due to changes in the course of the rivers, as the riparian owners have a right to the middle of the river bed.

The bank added: “the individual cultivators, who own land bordering the rivers in question and who undergo changes in their course, are therefore entitled to alluvial deposits, such as those made on the land, in addition to the rivers, i.e. on the assumption that riverbank owners own land, but not only on the banks of the rivers, but also on such property extending to half of the bottom(s) of the rivers concerned, and thus on the exposure to air of such bottoms of the rivers concerned, rather on changes in the course of the rivers, thus takes place, the riparian owner has the right to claim ownership thereof, unless, of course, there is evidence to indicate that the tax records did not express such a fact therein..”

The Court added further “It is still imperative that the riparian owner proves that he owns the land adjacent to the banks of the river in question, and must prove this before any changes to the course of the river take place.”

Furthermore, the rivers’ actions are uncontrollable by humans; rather, they are events of great magnitude. The consequence of this is that when the movement of rivers cannot be frozen nor regulated by human action, a riparian owner cannot foresee or control the flow of the rivers, the bench said.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the impugned notification striking down Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

After hearing the submissions, the Court quashed the notification and held that where the individual farmer who owns land bordering the banks of the river in question runs the risk of losing the land due to its submergence in the river.

He must then be accorded the benefit of alluvial deposits such as occur on the banks of the river due to the change in the course of the river, the Court added.

“The said riparian owner is also given the right to claim ownership over those lands, which are exposed to the air, on the change in the course of rivers, but of course on the banks of such rivers, the individual owner having an individual right of ownership, and/or dependent on the individual owner establishing his title to the lands bordering the river, as this allows the riparian owner to claim his proprietary land up to the mid-stream, and thus also claim the exposure of such lands to heaven, as happens in consequence of the change in the course of the rivers, that he has rights of ownership over them. the Court added.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur, speaking on behalf of the Court, said that the impugned removal thus raises the relevant hurdles, whereby the impugned legislation can also be declared ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.

“The Legislature has attempted to foresee that there would be no change in the course of the river, and has furthermore attempted untenably to perceive that the rivers would forever follow such a course as the Legislature deems fit. The aforementioned perceptions and considerations were not within the domain of the legislature, as they attempted to restrict the doctrine of vis major in an untenable manner,the division bench said.

The Court also observed that there is complete shortage of manpower and personnel in the concerned revenue departments, working in the State of Punjab and Haryana, for carrying out the necessary constant surveys in accordance with changes in the course of rivers, flowing within the territory of the said States, so as to update the registration of rights.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretaries of the Revenue Departments of both the states to “immediately overcome” the manpower shortage.

Based on the foregoing, the plea has been declared well-founded.

Title: Balbhadur Singh (deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 143

Click here to read/download the order