Shamlat Deh Status Confirmed: The court upheld the classification of the lands as Shamlat Deh. The petitioners failed to establish any valid ownership claim.

Quasi-Permanent Allotment Not Established: The petitioners could not prove that their lands were allotted on a quasi-permanent basis. Leaseholders do not qualify for protection under Section 2(g)(ii-a).

Lease Does Not Confer Ownership: Leasehold rights are temporary and do not convert into ownership. The petitioners' ancestors were recorded as lessees, not owners.

Unauthorized Occupation Not Protected: The court affirmed eviction orders under Section 7 of the Act.

Procedural Irregularities Rejected: Non-framing of issues did not prejudice the petitioners, as they were aware of the case and had presented evidence.

Major Acts & Legal Provisions:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition (SLP) Jurisdiction
• Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Section 2(g), Section 2(g)(ii-a), Section 7, Section 11 – Definition of Shamlat Deh – Lease v. Ownership
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 105 – Definition of Lease

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation:

   • The case concerns multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging eviction orders and ownership claims over Shamlat Deh lands under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

2. Who is Asking the Court & For What Remedy?

   • The petitioners (including Dalip Ram) sought a declaration of ownership and protection from eviction under Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act.

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

   • The petitioners contended that their ancestors were allotted the lands on a quasi-permanent basis or that the lands were wrongly classified as Shamlat Deh.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?

   • The High Court of Punjab & Haryana had dismissed their claims, holding that:
     a) The lands were Shamlat Deh and vested in the Gram Panchayat.
     b) The petitioners were unauthorized occupants.
     c) Leases do not confer ownership rights.
   • The petitioners filed SLPs before the Supreme Court challenging these decisions.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioners' lands were Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g) of the Act?
2. Whether quasi-permanent allotment under Section 2(g)(ii-a) applied to the petitioners' cases?
3. Whether leaseholders could claim ownership and protection under the 1995 amendment to the Act?
4. Whether procedural irregularities (non-framing of issues) vitiated the eviction orders?

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioners' Arguments:

• The lands were wrongly classified as Shamlat Deh.
• Their ancestors were either allotted the lands or had adverse possession.
• Non-framing of issues by the authorities violated natural justice.

Respondents' Arguments (State & Gram Panchayat):

• The petitioners’ claims were based on leases, which do not confer ownership.
• The Jamabandi records (1963-64) confirmed that the lands were Shamlat Deh.
• The 1995 amendment (Section 2(g)(ii-a)) did not apply to leaseholders.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Leaseholders cannot claim ownership under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
2. Unauthorized occupation after lease expiry is not protected under Section 2(g)(ii-a).
3. Quasi-permanent allotment applies only to displaced persons or valid transfers before July 9, 1985.
4. Non-framing of issues does not vitiate proceedings if parties were aware of the dispute and presented evidence.

Final Order

• All Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
• Eviction orders upheld.
• Only two cases were de-tagged for separate hearings.

Subjects:

Shamlat Deh – Leaseholders – Quasi-Permanent Allotment – Unauthorized Occupation – Section 2(g)(ii-a) – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act – Eviction – Lease v. Ownership – Non-Framing of Issues – Adverse Possession