PATRAM versus GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS.

PATRAM versus GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR & ORS.

The Court held that the omission of a comma in proviso (v) of Section 2(g) was a drafting error and that 'shamilat' must be read with 'taraf', 'patti', 'panna' and 'thola'; a parcel described as 'Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi' and continuously cultivated by the appellant's ancestors and not used for the common purposes of the village or even for the relevant patti therefore did not qualify as 'shamilat deh' and did not vest in the village proprietary body, so the High Court and earlier orders were set aside and the ownership entry was to record the appellant with 'shamlat patti'.

Parties
Appellant: Patram; Respondent: Gram Panchayat Katwar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Shamilat Deh, Interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (regulation) Act, 1961, Vesting of Village Common Land
Land Law Property Law Revenue Law Statutory Interpretation Definition of Shamilat Deh Interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (regulation) Act, 1961 Vesting of Village Common Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patram

Appellant

Gram Panchayat Katwar & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land in occupation of the appellant is 'shamilat deh' land within the meaning of Section 2(g) and vests in the village proprietary body
  2. 2 Whether the word 'shamilat' in proviso clause (v) of Section 2(g) must be read with taraf, patti, panna and thola or only with taraf

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the omission of a comma in proviso (v) of Section 2(g) was a drafting error and that 'shamilat' must be read with 'taraf', 'patti', 'panna' and 'thola'; a parcel described as 'Shamlat Patti Dhera & Khubi' and continuously cultivated by the appellant's ancestors and not used for the common purposes of the village or even for the relevant patti therefore did not qualify as 'shamilat deh' and did not vest in the village proprietary body, so the High Court and earlier orders were set aside and the ownership entry was to record the appellant with 'shamlat patti'.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all authorities below set aside
  • Name of the appellant to be entered in the column of ownership with the entry 'shamlat patti'