Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a series of appeals before the Supreme Court of India involving members of Scheduled Castes who had been granted leases of government nazool land in Punjab and were later sought to be evicted as unauthorised occupants after expiry of the leases. The lead appellant, Charan Singh, was a member of the Scheduled Castes and had been granted 55 Kanals 15 Marlas of land in revenue estate Katkopa, Faridkot District, Punjab, under a government policy. In 1962, Charan Singh was granted a lease of uncultivable waste land; he reclaimed the land, installed a tube-well, and brought it under cultivation. The lease expired in 1972. The State thereafter treated him as an unauthorised occupant and initiated eviction proceedings. The appellant challenged the action in various forums, but the High Court ultimately upheld the eviction holding that as a lessee whose lease had expired by efflux of time, he had no right to remain in possession. It was also brought to the Supreme Court's attention that the land in question originally belonged to the Maharaja of Faridkot; a vast extent of 38,000 kanals was taken from the Maharaja, of which 20,159 kanals 2 marlas was converted into nazool land, and the Government had decided to allot such nazool land to members of the Scheduled Castes. Government proceedings indicated that the policy initially directed assignment to Cooperative Societies composed of Scheduled Caste members and later was relaxed to permit individual members. The core question was whether the respondents were justified in law to take action against the appellants for their ejectment, particularly in light of the constitutional scheme for economic empowerment of Scheduled Castes and the government's own assignment policy. The appellants, through senior counsel V.C. Mahajan, contended that instead of being treated as unauthorised occupants, they should be deemed to have been assigned the land under the Nazool Land Rules, 1956, and the prevailing policy. They argued that the land was part of nazool land earmarked for Scheduled Castes and that the appellants had reclaimed and cultivated it after incurring considerable expense and labour. The State, through counsel Manoj Swarup, argued that the land was assigned only for a term of 10 years, the government had the power to assign according to procedure, and pending appeals possession had been taken and the land auctioned to third parties, so no right subsisted. The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decisions in Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr. and R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka. It reiterated that economic empowerment and social justice are fundamental rights for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and weaker sections; that Article 21 of the Constitution assures the right to life and has been expansively interpreted to include the right to livelihood, equality, and dignity; that the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles form a trinity and are supplementary and complementary; and that the State is enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood and to distribute material resources of the community for common welfare. The court held that the prohibition on alienation of assigned lands is to effectuate the constitutional policy of economic empowerment, and such alienation is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Given that the Government had a specific policy to assign nazool land to Scheduled Castes at the rate of Rs.20 per acre or 90 times the land revenue whichever was less, and that the appellants had been inducted into possession, reclaimed the land, and remained in possession after expiry of the lease, the Government was required to regularise their possession rather than evict them. The appeals were disposed of with directions that the appellants should make necessary applications for regularisation within four weeks; the competent authorities were directed to regularise their possession by imposing necessary conditions, including restrictions on sub-letting and selling, within two months of receiving the applications; and the appellants were to remain in possession until regularisation and enjoy the lands without any sub-letting or alienation thereof. No costs were awarded, and the contempt petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Economic Empowerment as Fundamental Right - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39(b), 46 and Preamble - The court considered whether eviction of a Scheduled Caste lessee from government nazool land after lease expiry was justified; relied on precedent to hold that economic empowerment and social justice are fundamental rights for weaker sections and that the State must take positive measures to provide livelihood and distribute material resources - Held that eviction action was not justified and possession should be regularised (Paras Not mentioned). B) Welfare State - Distributive Justice - State Duty to Protect Weaker Sections - Constitution of India, Articles 38, 39(b), 46 and Preamble - The court reiterated that the basic aim of a welfare state is attainment of social, economic, and political equality and that the Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights, and Preamble are supplementary; the State is enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor, Dalits, and Tribes and to distribute material resources for common welfare - Held that refusal to regularise possession of Scheduled Caste lessees who reclaimed land would defeat constitutional objectives (Paras Not mentioned). C) Land Laws - Government Land Assignment Policy - Regularisation of Nazool Land Lease - Nazool Land Rules, 1956 - The Government of Punjab had a policy to assign nazool land to Cooperative Societies composed of Scheduled Castes and later to individual members; the appellants were granted lease of uncultivable waste land, reclaimed it, and remained after expiry; instead of treating them as unauthorised occupants, the Government was required to regularise their possession in accordance with its policy - Held that the appellants were entitled to make applications for regularisation and the authorities were directed to regularise within two months with restrictions on alienation (Paras Not mentioned). D) Contract Law - Void Alienation - Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 - In the context of assigned lands to Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the court referred to earlier decisions holding that alienation of such assigned land without permission of competent authority is void; the prohibition is to effectuate constitutional policy of economic empowerment - Held that restrictions on sub-letting and selling of regularised lands must be imposed to prevent exploitation (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were justified in law to take action against the appellants for their ejectment.
Final Decision
Appeals disposed of with directions to regularize possession; appellants to apply within four weeks; authorities to regularize imposing conditions against alienation; dispose within two months; appellants remain in possession until regularization and enjoy without sub-letting or alienation; no costs; contempt petition dismissed.
Law Points
- Economic empowerment and social justice are fundamental rights
- right to life under Article 21 includes right to economic empowerment
- State must provide adequate means of livelihood and distribute material resources to weaker sections
- alienation of assigned land without permission is void
- welfare State has duty to assist weaker sections
- prohibition on alienation effectuates constitutional policy
- Government policy to assign nazool land to Scheduled Castes requires regularization of possession.
