Dholposh Shastri Vs Civil Panchayat/ Gram Panchayat Bas Lambi and Ors.

RFA No. 7133 of 2013 & RFA 4408 of 2015 & cross-objections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

I. RFA No. 7133 of 2013 (O&M) Dholposh Shastri (since deceased) through his LRs. … Appellants Versus Civil Panchayat / Gram Panchayat of village Bas L a mbi, Gurgaon & Ors. …Responde n ts II. Cross-objection No. 83-CI of 2014 IN RFA No. 7133 of 2013. Dholposh Shastri (since deceased) through his LRs. … Appellants Versus Civil Panchayat / Gram Panchayat of village Bas L a mbi, Gurgaon & Ors. …Cross-objec t or & III. RFA NO. 4408 of 2015 Sumer Singh @ Kashmiri Lal & Ors. … Appellants Versus Dholposh Shas t ri & Ors. …Responde n ts Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Pronounced on : 17.11.2025 Uploaded on : 17.11.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- M r . Rajesh Lamba, Advocate Fo r the appellant(s) in RFA No. 44 0 8 of 2015 and Fo r respondents No.6 to 12 in RFA No. 7133 of 2013. M r . Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana Fo r respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in RFA N O. 4408 of 2015 and Fo r respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in RF A No. 7133 of 2013.

¶4

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶5

Page N: 1 of 5

¶6

RFA No. 7133 of 2013 & RFA 4408 of 2015 & cross-objections

¶7

M r . Pritam S. Saini, Advocate Fo r respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in RFA N o. 4408 of 2015 and Fo r respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in RFA N o. 7133 of 2013.

¶8

N o ne for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in RF A No. 4408 of 2015. N o ne for appellants and Re s pondent No.1 in RFA No. 7133 of 2013. *****

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶10

Th i s common order addresses RF A No. 7133 of 2013; RFA No. 4408 of 2015, and C r oss-Objections No. 83-CI of 2014 filed in RFA No. 7133 of 20 1 3. All these matters arise out of the award dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Dist r ict Judge, Gurgaon, on a refer e nce under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894, relating to the apportionment of compensation awarded for land acquir e d in village Bas Lambi, District G urgaon.

¶11

As the record reveals, by notifica t ion dated 11.01.2005 under S e c- tion 4 followe d by another notification31.05. 2 005 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act , land situated in the revenue estate of village Bas Lambi sto o d acquired, inclu d ing land comprised in Killa No. 20 min (5-8) and Killa No. 21 m in (1-18) i.e., 7 Kanal 6 Marla. The Land Acquisiti o n Collector, Gurgaon, vide Aw a rd No. 22 dated 10.05.2006, assessed compensa t ion of ₹16,65,313/- for this la n d, which is the su b ject matter of apportionment.

¶12

Th e primary dispute centres on t he entitlement to compensation amongst:

¶13

I. Petitioner Dholposh Shastri (appellant i n RFA No. 7133 of 2013, now d e- ceased a n d substituted through his LRs),

¶14

II. Recorde d Dholidars (respondents 6–12) – appellants in RFA No. 4408 of 2015, an d

¶15

III. Gram Pa n chayat, Bas Lambi – cross-obje c tor.

¶16

Petitioner’s claim: Dholposh Shastri asserted that he was lessee in possession un d er two long-term registered lease-deeds of 95 and 99 ye a rs

¶17

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page N: 2 of 5

¶19

RFA No. 7133 of 2013 & RFA 4408 of 2015 & cross-objections

¶20

executed in 1 9 93 by the recorded Dholidars, whose Dholi rights, he claim e d, were absolute, having been created for Puna r th as far back as 1877. According to him, under t he customary law of the regio n , once land is gifted for Punar t h , the Dholidar’s r ights become absolute, leaving no reversionary right in the Gr a m Panchayat. On t his premise, he claimed entitle m ent to the entire compensation.

¶21

Respondents 6–12 (Dholidars) Claim: They denied execution of any lease-deed in favour of the petitioner and as s erted that their Dholi rights had ripened into full ownership due to the natur e of the Punarth grant. Therefo r e, they claimed e x clusive entitlement to the com p ensation.

¶22

Gram Panchayat’s stand: The Panchayat contended that the land formed part of the Shamlat Deh under Se c tion 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land s (Regulation) Act, 1961. It a s serted that Dholi rights did n authorize the D holidars to lease out the land, and consequently, the Pancha y at alone was entitled to the compensation.

¶23

7.1 Findings by Reference Court: A fter appreciating the eviden c including revenue records from 1929–30 onwa r ds, the Reference Court found:

¶24

The land stood recorded as Shamlat D e h but had been continuously in cultivati n g possession of the Dholidars a n d their predecessors for decad e s.

¶25

The nat u re of possession was Bila La g an Bawajah Punarth —rent-free occupati o n for religious service, confirm e d by repeated jamabandi entri e s.

¶26

No evidence was led by the Panchayat to show that the Dholi rights w e re conditio n al, terminable, or liable for rev e rsion.

¶27

The doc u ments proved the execution o f long-term lease-deeds in fav o ur of the p e titioner, who was in continu o us possession for more than 12 years pri o r to acquisition.

¶28

7.2 Relying on the law declared by a Division Bench in Dharamvir v. Bahadur Singh, (2007) 2 RCR (Civil) 217 (DB) , the Reference Court held t h at where a Dholi i s granted for Punarth without a ny rider, it partakes the charac t er of an absolut e gift, vesting full ownership i n the Dholidar. Consequently, the JITEN SHARMA Gram Panchay a t had no right to the compen s ation. As regards apportionm e 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 5

¶29

RFA No. 7133 of 2013 & RFA 4408 of 2015 & cross-objections

¶30

between Dholi d ars and lessee, the Reference C ourt applied the principle in Inder Parshad v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 239 , a w arding 60% compensation to the lessee and 40% to the Dholidars.

¶31

Before This Court, despite due n o tice of hearing, no one appeared for the appella n t in RFA No. 7133 of 2013 (les s ee), or the cross-objector - Gr a m Panchayat. Arg u ments were addressed only b y counsel for Dholidars (in RFA N o. 4408 of 2015), learned State counsel for the a c quiring authority, and counsel f or the beneficiary Department. 9. Th i s Court has, nevertheless, exa m ined the record and considered the rival claims . 10. Discussion and Analysis : Rights of the Gram Panchayat - The documentary e v idence spanning several deca d es, including jamabandis of 19 2 9- 30, 1939-40, and 1976-77, consistently reco r ds in the ownership column as Shamlat Deh; a nd in cultivation/possession, t h e predecessors of respondent s 6 to 12 as Dholi d ars. Nature of possession is recorded as Bila Lagan Bawajah Punarth , indic a ting rent-free possession fo r religious duties. The evide n disproves the P anchayat’s claim that the lan d reverted to it on the ground of later entries d escribing the land as banjar . A mere change in agricultu condition does not extinguish Dholi rights. The Panchayat produced no evidence to demonstrat e that the Dholi rights were con d itional, or subject to reversion on abandonment o f religious duties. The solitar y witness examined by Pancha y at (RW-1) failed t o establish any such condition. 11. In Dharamvir v. Bahadur Singh (supra) , the Division Bench of t h is court clarified that where a Dholi grant is m ade without a condition tied to performance o f religious services, it operates a s an absolute tenure, vesting f ull proprietary rig h ts in the Dholidar, with no reversionary rights retained by the Panchayat. Ap p lying this principle, the Refere n ce Court was right in holding t h at the Gram Pa n chayat had no title in the land and was not entitled compensation. Thus, the cross-objections fil e d by the Panchayat are wh o lly without merit a nd so, the same are dismissed

¶32

Inter se Rights of Lessee and Dholidars : The execution of two valid, JITEN SHARMA registered leas e -deeds in favour of petitioner D holposh Shastri, one for 95 ye a rs 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 5

¶33

RFA No. 7133 of 2013 & RFA 4408 of 2015 & cross-objections

¶34

and another fo r 99 years, has remained uncon t roverted before this Court. Th e se lease-deeds were executed by the perso n s recorded as Dholidars (n o appellants in R F A No. 4408 of 2015) , who by v i rtue of the Dholi tenure vested in them, were c o mpetent to lease out the land. The documentary eviden c including Ex.R2/1, Ex.P1, and Ex.P2, conclusi v ely establishes the fact of law f ul lease, the co n tinuous possession of the l e ssee for over 12 years bef o acquisition, an d transfer of possession by Dholidars themselves. 13. O n ce Dholidars became full o wners in view of Dharamv (supra), their c o mpetence to execute lease-de e ds cannot be questioned. 14. In Inder Parshad (supra) , invol v ing a 99-year lease, where the lessee was in possession for 18 years, H on’ble Supreme Court uph e apportionment of compensation at 75% to the lessee and 25% to the lessor. 15. In the present case, since the lessee had been in possession f or around 12 yea r s and not 18, the Reference C ourt appropriately awarded 6 0 % compensation to the lessee and 40% to t he Dholidars. The reasoning consistent wit h the principle that apportion m ent depends on the length and nature of possession , especially where th e lessee is in long-term, ne a r- permanent pos s ession under a registered leas e . In the circumstances, there is no perversity or error in the findings, warranting any interference. 16. Conclusion : Upon a comprehensi v e examination of the revenue r e- cord, statutory provisions, applicable custom, a nd binding precedents, this Co u rt finds no infir m ity in the well-reasoned award of the Reference Cou Therefore, RFA No. 7133 of 2013 (by lessee) i s hereby dismissed. RFA No. 4408 of 2015 (by Dh o lidars) is dismissed. Cross-Objections No. 83-CI of 2014 (by Gr a m Panchayat) are also dismissed. The apportion m ent of compensation at 60% to the lessee, and 40% to the Dholidars, is here b y affirmed. The Gram Pancha y at has no share in the compensation. Parties to b e ar their own costs.

¶35

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶36

17.11.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page N: 5 of 5

Dholposh Shastri v. Civil Panchayat/ Gram Panchayat Bas Lambi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dholposh Shastri v. Civil Panchayat/ Gram Panchayat Bas Lambi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others

Ramesh Khatri Vs Darshan

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others

Market Committee, Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand

Market Committee,Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand Kidar Nath