Charand land vests as shamilat-deh, and Panchayat leasing or cultivation use is valid within the statutory rules.

Charand land is treated as shamilat-deh under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, and therefore vests in the Gram Panchayat. The Court accepted the settled view that charand is not distinct from shamilat-deh for vesting purposes, and rejected the challenge to vesting. It also held that Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 permits the Panchayat to use or lease vested land for authorised purposes, including grazing and cultivation. On the facts, the challenge to the lease and use of the land was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether land described as charand falls within the definition of shamilat-deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat under the Act; (ii) whether the Gram Panchayat could lease or use the vested land for cultivation or income-generating purposes under the Rules, and whether such action was illegal or unconstitutional.

Issue (i): whether land described as charand falls within the definition of shamilat-deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat under the Act.

Analysis: The definition of shamilat-deh under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 expressly includes lands described in the revenue record as shamilat-deh and charand in Haryana. The settled view in earlier decisions accepted that charand is not distinct from shamilat-deh for the purposes of vesting. The challenge based on alleged absence of vesting and reliance on Article 31A was not supported by the pleadings or the record.

Conclusion: The land described as charand was rightly treated as shamilat-deh vested in the Gram Panchayat, and the challenge to vesting failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Gram Panchayat could lease or use the vested land for cultivation or income-generating purposes under the Rules, and whether such action was illegal or unconstitutional.

Analysis: Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 permits the Gram Panchayat to use shamilat-deh land for any of the specified purposes, including grazing of animals and leasing out for cultivation. The prior decisions relied upon by the Court consistently held that there is no fetter beyond the statutory rules on the Panchayat's power to manage and use the land for authorised purposes. On the facts, the long delay in objecting to vesting and the acceptance of lease arrangements by the villagers also negatived the bona fides of the challenge.

Conclusion: The Gram Panchayat was competent to lease and use the land within the statutory framework, and the challenge to the lease and use of the land was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the High Court's view upholding the Panchayat's over the land and its authorised use was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Charand land included in shamilat-deh vests in the Gram Panchayat, which may use or lease such land only for the purposes authorised by the governing rules, including cultivation.

---