Charan
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1996] INSC 1511 (27 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.T. Nanavati
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO.15403-06 OF 1996,15408-17,&15407/96 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos.10416-19/94, 7006-15/95 and 4886/96. AND CONTEMP PETITION (C) NO.534 OF
1996
O R D
E R
Substitution
allowed.
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The
facts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8269/94 are sufficient for disposal
of all the matters by common judgment.
The
appellant-Charan Singh, a member of the Scheduled Castes, was granted 55 Kanals
15 Marlas of the land situated in the revenue estate of Katkopa in Faridkot Disitrict
of Punjab State as par The policy. I is now not in dispute that in 1962, the
was granted lease of uncultivable waste land and he reclaimed the land and also
set up tube-well and was cultivating the land. the said lease expired in 1972.
Thereafter,
he found to be in unauthorised occupation of such land. Action was taken for
his eviction. He challenged the action in various proceedings. Ultimately, in
the impugned order it was held that since he was a lessee and the lease stood
expired by efflux of time, he had no right to remain in possession thereof.
Accordingly, the order of eviction was upheld by the High Court.
Shri V.C.Mahajan,
learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends that since the appellant is
a member of Scheduled Castes of Government had allotted the land which
originally belonged to Maharaja of Faridkot; a vast extent of land was found in
possession of Maharaja of which 38,000 was taken from Maharaja and 20159 kanal,
2 marlas was converted into nazool land; the Government had taken a decision to
allot this nazool land to the members of the Scheduled Castes. He placed before
us the relevant proceedings issued by the Government in that behalf. We find
from the proceedings taking that action in view of the facts and circumstances
of the case. Initially, the appellants had come into possession by way of a
lease granted to them. They remained in possession of the land after the expiry
of the lease but reclaimed the land and brought it under cultivation, obviously
after incurring considerable expenses and labour. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar
v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr. [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 549], the question
arose: whether the alienation of the lands assigned to the Scheduled Tribes was
valid in law? In that context, considering the Preamble, the Directive
Principles and the Fundamental Rights including the right to life assured by Article
21 of the Constitution, this Court had held that economic empowerment and
social justice are Fundamental Rights of the tribes. The basic aim of the
welfare State is the attainment of substantial degree of social, economic and
political equalities to achieve self-expression in his work as a citizen as
also Teisure and social justice. The distinguishing characteristic of the
welfare State is the assumption by community, acting through the State and its
responsibilities to provide the means and opportunities whereby all its members
can reach minimum standard of and orders made from time to time that either the
nazool land or the Government surplus land was directed to be assigned
initially to the Co-operative Societies composed of member of Scheduled Castes
and later it was relaxed in favor of the individual members. It is, therefore,
contended by Shri Mahajan that instead of treating the appellant as unauthorised
occupant, he should be deemed to have been assigned the land as per the Nazool
Land Rules, 1956 then in vogue. Instead, the appellant was sought to be
evicted.
Therefore,
the action taken by the respondent-Government is not correct in law. Shri Manoj
Swarup, learned counsel for the State, contends that the land was, though
assigned for 10 years, the Government has got power to assign to the persons as
per the procedure in vogue. Pending the appeals in this Court, possession was
taken and the land was auctioned to the third parties and, therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to any right.
Having
regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is: whether the respondents were justified in law to take action
against the appellants for their ejectment? We are of the view that the
Government was not justified in economic security, social status, culture and
health. The welfare State, therefore, should take positive measures to assist
the community at large to act in collective responsibility towards its members
to assist them. It was, therefore, held thus:
"Article
21 of the Constitution assures right to life. To make right to life meaningful
and effective, this Court put up expensive interpretation and brought within
its ambit right to education, health, speedy trial, equal wages for equal work
is fundamental rights. Articles 14, 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination and
accord equality. The Preamble to the Constitution as a socialist republic visualises
to remove economic inequalities and to provide facilities and opportunities for
decent standard of living and to protect the economic interest of the weaker
segments of the society, in particular, Scheduled Castes i.e. Dalits and the
Scheduled Tribes i.e. Tribes and to protect them form "all forms of
exploitations".
Many a
day have come and gone after 26.1.1950 but no leaf is turned in the lives of
the poor and the gap between the rich and the poor is gradually widening on the
brink of being unbridgeable.
Providing
adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens and distribution of the
material resources of the community for common welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits
and Tribes, to fulfill the basic needs to bring about a fundamental change in
the structure of the Indian society which was divided by erecting impregnable
walls of separation between the people on grounds of caste, sub- caste, creed,
religion, race language and sex, Equality of opportunity and status thereby
would become the bedrocks for social integration. Economic empowerment thereby
is the foundation to make equality of status, dignity of person and equal
opportunity a truism. The core of the commitment of the Constitution to the
social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the fundamental
rights and directive principles as supplementary and complementary to each
other. The Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles - the trinity
- are the conscience of the Constitution.
Political
democracy has to be stable. Socio- economic democracy must take strong roots
and should become a way of life. The State, therefore, is enjoined to provide
adequate means of livelihood to the poor, weaker sections of the society, the Dalits
and Tribes and to distribute material resources of the community to them for
common welfare etc." It was accordingly held that right to economic
empowerment is a fundamental right. The alienation of assigned land without
permission of competent authority was held void.
In R. Chandevarappa
and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 309] this
Court was to consider whether the alienation of Government lands allotted to
the Scheduled Castes was in violation of the Constitutional objectives under
Articles 39(b) and 46. It was held that economic empowerment to the Dalits.
Tribes and the poor as a part of distributive justice is a fundamental right;
assignment of the land to them under Article 39(b) was to provide socio-
economic justice to the Scheduled Castes. The alienation of the land,
therefore, was held to be in violation of the Constitutional objectives. It was
held thus:
"In
fact, the cumulative effect of social and economic legislation is to specify
the basic structure.
Moreover,
the social system shapes the wants and aspirations that its citizens come to
have. It determines in part the sort of persons they want to be as well as the
sort of persons they are. These as economic system is not only as institutional
divide for satisfying existing wants and needs but a way of creating and
fashioning wants in the future. the economic empowerment, therefore, to the
poor, dalits and tribes as an integral constitutional scheme of socio-economic
democracy is a way of life of political democracy.
Economic
empowerment is, therefore, a basic human right and a fundamental right as part
of right to live, equality and of status and dignity to the poor, weaker
sections, dalits and tribes.
The
prohibition from alienation is to effectuate the constitutional policy of
economic empowerment under Articles 14, 21, 38, 39 and 46 read with the
Preamble of the Constitution. Accordingly it was held tat refusal to permit
alienation is to effectuate the constitutional policy. The alienation was
declared to be void under Sections 23 of the Contract Act being violative of
the constitutional scheme of economic empowerment to accord equality of status,
dignity of persons and economic empowerment." It was further held that
providing adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens and the
distribution of the material resources of the community for common welfare,
enable the poor, the Dalits and the Tribes, to fulfill the basic needs to bring
about the fundamental change in the structure of the Indian society. Equality
of opportunity and status would thereby become the bedrocks for social
integration. Economic empowerment is, therefore, a basic human right and
fundamental right as a part of right to life to make political democracy
stable. Socio-economic democracy wood then take strong roots and become a way
of life. The State, therefore, is in joined to provide adequate means of
livelihood to the poor and weaker sections of the society, the Dalits and the
Tribes and distribute material resources of the community to them for common
welfare. Justice is an attribute of human conduct and rule of law is
indispensable foundation to establish socio-economic justice. The doctrine of
political economy must include interpretation for the public good which is
based on justice that would guide the people when questions of economic and
social policy are under consideration.
It is
now settled policy of the Government as enjoined under Article 46 of the Constitution
and the Directive Principles, particularly Articles 38 and 39(b) and the
Preamble of the Constitution that economic and social justice requires to be
done to the weaker sections to the society, in particular to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent them from social injustice and
prevention of all forms of exploitation. In the light of that constitutional
objective of economic empowerment, the Government have rightly taken the policy
to assign the lease to the either to a Cooperative Society composed of the
Scheduled Castes or individual members of the Scheduled Tribes members, as the
case may be, in accordance with their policy then in vogue at the rate of
Rs.20/- per acre or 90 times the land revenue, whichever is less. Under these
circumstances, the appellants having been inducted into possession reclaimed
the land and remained in possession after the expiry of the lease, the
Government is required to regularize their possession and assign the lands in
their possession in accordance with its policy. The appellants, therefore, are
directed to make necessary application within four weeks from today to the
competent authority and the authorities are directed to regularise their
possession imposing necessary conditions for their continuance in possession
and enjoyment of the same in the light of the constitutional objective of
rendering them socio-economic justice, putting restrictions on sub-letting or
selling; all the relevant conditions in that behalf may be imposed so that they
remain in possession and enjoy the same to improve their social and economic
status as enjoined under the Constitution. The authorities also are directed to
dispose of the applications within a period of two months from the date of the
receipt of the same. The appellants shall remain in possession until the regularisation
is done and shall enjoy the lands without any sub-letting or alienation
thereof.
The
appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Contempt
petition is dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2