TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether lands contributed by proprietors through a pro rata cut but not specifically earmarked in the consolidation scheme for common purposes vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government under the amended definition of shamlat deh. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, requiring deposit of the penalty as a condition for appeal, is ultra vires.
Issue (i): Whether lands contributed by proprietors through a pro rata cut but not specifically earmarked in the consolidation scheme for common purposes vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government under the amended definition of shamlat deh.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 proceeds on the basis of a consolidation scheme framed under Section 14, which may reserve land for common purposes under Section 18 and, on the scheme coming into force, vest management and control of such reserved land in the Panchayat or the State Government under Section 23-A. Rule 16(ii) links vesting to land reserved or earmarked for common purposes in the scheme. The Court held that the amended provision in Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is only explanatory and does not enlarge the statutory vesting beyond land actually reserved in the consolidation scheme. Lands contributed by proprietors but left unutilised and not earmarked for common purposes are bachat land and do not vest in the Panchayat merely because they are recorded as jumla malkan or similar entries. Only land specifically reserved for common purposes in the scheme vests, whether utilised or not.
Conclusion: The answer is in the negative insofar as unutilised, non-earmarked bachat land is concerned. Such land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, while land reserved for common purposes in the consolidation scheme does vest.
Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, requiring deposit of the penalty as a condition for appeal, is ultra vires.
Analysis: The right of appeal is a creature of statute, and the legislature can validly attach conditions to its exercise. A pre-deposit requirement does not by itself make the appellate remedy illusory or unconstitutional. The Court treated the condition as a permissible statutory restriction on the right of appeal.
Conclusion: The challenge fails. The proviso to Section 13-B is upheld.
Final Conclusion: The amended provision was upheld as a clarificatory measure, but its operation was confined to land actually reserved for common purposes in a valid consolidation scheme. Mutations founded only on the amendment, insofar as they covered unreserved bachat land, were liable to be cancelled, while the statutory appellate condition under Section 13-B remained valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Only land specifically reserved or earmarked for common purposes in a consolidation scheme, and not merely land contributed through pro rata cut or recorded in proprietary possession, vests in the Panchayat or State Government; a statutory right of appeal may be subjected to a pre-deposit condition.
TaxTMI 
