Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
16 judgments · newest first · showing 1–16
The State of Haryana amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by inserting sub‑clause (6) to s.2(g) through Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, which declared that lands reserved for village common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) …
The case concerned a parcel of shamlatdeh (village common) land in Punjab/Haryana that had been granted rent‑free to Narain Dass as a bhondedar in return for secular services to the village temple. Narain Dass later sold the land to Lajja Ram and his sons, who claimed ownership. The village …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 (the Amending Act) which amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The issues centered on whether the amendment amounted to an acquisition of land without compensation, whether it fell within …
The appellant Patram occupied a parcel of land in Haryana described in revenue records as "Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi" for over a century, but the land was never used for the common purpose of the village. The Gram Panchayat entered the land as "Panchayat Deh" in 1987‑88, leading to a dispute over …
The appellants, Tara Chand and others, claimed occupancy rights over a 78-kanal land in Jhupa Khurd, asserting they were tenants under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Their ancestors had been recorded as joint‑owners (hisedars) of the shamilat deh since before 1935‑36 and paid …
The Gram Panchayat of Rohar Jagir filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants who had illegally occupied a village pond and constructed houses on it. The Collector regularized the occupants’ possession, claiming it was not in …
The appellant Mahavir Singh was appointed Lambardar of Village Thurana by the District Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which consider factors such as hereditary claim, land ownership, service to the State, character and age. Respondent No.1, Khiali Ram, challenged the appointment …
The Gram Panchayat of Village Kum Kalan challenged a 1995 amendment (Amendment Act No. 8) to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which retrospectively validated land transfers that had been invalidated by a Supreme Court judgment in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder …
The appellant, a Saunjidar, obtained a decree for possession of land from the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court, on a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, set aside those decrees, holding that only the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands …
The respondents filed a suit in a civil court challenging the validity of a ten‑year lease of village common land granted by the Gram Panchayat and the legality of the auction. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, …
The State of Punjab sought possession of a parcel of land on the basis that it had vested in the Gram Panchayat and was mutated in its name under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The appellants (Nos. 2 and 3) claimed that the land had been allotted to them earlier, on which …
The dispute concerned a tract of shamilat pasture land used by the village community of Majra Dughe for grazing. The land, originally vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, later fell under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and …
The respondents, who were the khewatdars of land classified as “Shamlat deh” in village Brahman Majra, claimed that the land reverted to them after the Gram Sabha was abolished, invoking Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965. The Municipal Committee of Sirhind argued that the land had …
The case concerned the constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1981, which sought to retrospectively bar civil courts from adjudicating disputes over village common lands (shamilat deh) and to empower Assistant Collectors to disregard …
The appellants filed a suit in a Subordinate Court seeking a declaration of ownership over 124 acres, asserting that the Gram Sabha had no interest. The trial court transferred the suit to the Assistant Collector under Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on the …
The petitioners, Ram Singh and others, filed a civil suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC seeking a declaration that they were the owners and possessors of certain land and that the Gram Panchayat had no right over it, alleging that revenue records wrongly showed the land as Panchayat property. The …
