Bachat land

Consolidation Act, 1948 -- Re-partition of -- Prior to the incorporation of Section 42-A, there was no provision under the Consolidation Act, 1948 which specifically dealt with the Bachat or surplus land and how the same was to be dealt with -- There is no provision under the Consolidation Act, 1948 or the Consolidation Rules, 1949 which provide for partition or distribution of land reserved for common purpose amongst the proprietors of the village -- Definition of 'common purpose' under Section 2 (bb) is the answer, which is inclusive and wide enough, capable of taking care of any common need, convenience or benefit of the village and, therefore, leaves ample scope of utilizing this land in future with changed situations and circumstances -- Despite there being no provision of return of this type of land to the proprietors of the village by redistribution/repartition but in the absence of any specific provision dealing with the remaining land left out after earmarking the land for the common purposes as per the consolidation scheme, the concept of Surplus/Bachat land was coined and imported -- This resulted in proprietors of the village claiming repartition/ redistribution of common lands which were not specified in the Consolidation Scheme -- This concept although alien to the scheme of the Consolidation Act, 1948 but in the absence of there being any provision barring resort to such course, the same was accepted and given effect to – In Gurjan’s case 2000 (2) PLR 347 directions were based on the interpretation of the provisions of the statute existent then -- Had there been Section 42-A at the time when Gurjant Singh's case was decided, the directions therein could not have been issued as there would have been a specific provision dealing with the land reserved for common purposes which was not specified in the consolidation Scheme –  What Section 42-A provides is that land reserved for common purposes whether specified in the consolidation Scheme or not, shall not be partitioned amongst the proprietors of the village and it shall be utilized and continue to be utilized for common purposes notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidation Act, 1948 or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree, order or decision of any Court, or any authority, or any officer -- It cannot be said that in exercise of legislative powers, the legislature has over-ruled, revised or over-ridden a judicial decision which would be thus in violation of the legislative powers rather the Legislature had removed the basis on which the decision had been rendered -- Amendment, which has been brought about, is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the Legislature also has the competence to enact the same, which is not under challenge -- In exercising legislative powers, the Legislature can enact law with retrospective effect which may have the effect of making the decision of this Court in the case of Gurjant Singh's case (supra) ineffective but in the light of the affidavit filed by the State of Punjab stating therein that all judgments, decrees, orders or decisions of any Court or any authority or any officer where partition of Jumla Malkan lands has been implemented/given effect to before the date of notification i.e. 22.05.2007, the amendment would not be applicable – Stand of the State is very reasonable, just and equitable which cannot be faulted with --  Vires of Section 42-A in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Amendment Act, 2007 (Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007) are upheld (Applicability w.e.f. 22.5.2007). Mahatam Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 75 (P&H DB).

Jurisdiction of Director consolidation – Authorities under Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Power of -- After applying a pro-rata cut from the holdings of the proprietors as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land to be used for common purpose of the village, whether utilized or not, shall vest with the Gram Panchayat even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc. -- Bachat Land is the land which was contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut during the consolidation proceedings and which was not even ear-marked for the common purpose in the consolidation scheme, which has been entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and is to be re-partitioned among the proprietors -- Whether the land in dispute was reserved for common purpose of the village during the consolidation scheme or whether it was not so reserved, and the same be taken as Bachat Land, are questions of fact which can be gone into by the authorities under the Village Common Lands Act and not by the Director, Consolidation -- Director, Consolidation is not having jurisdiction to redistribute such land on an application filed by the proprietors of the village u/s Section 42 of the Consolidation Act -- Proprietors, if they are having any grouse, can claim their ownership right on the by availing the remedy to file a title suit u/s 11 of the Village Common Lands Act where they can establish by leading evidence that the disputed land is a Bachat Land and the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Ujagar Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Behra and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 111 (P&H DB).