The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana Government's notification that retrospectively amended the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar, and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act. The court ruled that this amendment was unconstitutional as it deprived 'Dholidars' of their ownership rights.
The petitioners, who were recorded as occupancy tenants (Dholidars), challenged the amendment, arguing that their property rights had been unfairly taken away. They contended that the amendments violated the rights granted to them under previous laws.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri observed:
"Since there has been an evident truncation and snatching of the absolute rights conferred by the supra statutory declaration, vis-a-vis the present petitioners, thereby the impugned amendment is constitutionally void. Moreover, reiteratedly it also remains unclothed with constitutional immunity, as it is not maneuvered towards bringing agrarian reforms."
The court ruled that the amendment arbitrarily stripped vested land rights, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It further noted:
"When the present petitioners are the tillers over the subject lands, and when there are expositions of law that their rights, as tillers, are unamenable to be snatched, as they are directly linked to the soil, whereby they are not intermediaries, nor do they come within the expression of acquirable 'estate' under clause (a) of sub-Article (2) of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India."
The petition challenged "notification No. Leg. 26/2022 dated 23.8.2022," issued under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar, and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018. The petitioners sought to declare it null and void.
They argued that once proprietary rights were granted by law, they could not be revoked arbitrarily without due process or compensation. The 2011 Act had already conferred ownership rights upon them, and the retrospective nature of the amendment disrupted prior land transactions, including sale deeds executed before its enactment.
The Haryana Government defended the amendment, claiming that it aimed to redistribute land more equitably as part of land reforms. It argued that:
- The legislation was protected under Article 31-A of the Constitution.
- It was in furtherance of agrarian reforms.
- Dholidars and other such tenants were not absolute owners, and their rights could be modified in the public interest.
However, the court rejected these arguments, stating:
"The legislation does not enjoy protection under Article 31-A of the Constitution. It is expropriatory in nature and does not qualify as agrarian reform."
The court emphasized that property rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily, citing Article 300-A, which mandates that property can only be deprived through legal authority.
- The amendment effectively expropriated land from petitioners without just compensation or legal due process.
- It did not meet the criteria for an agrarian reform law, which would have granted it immunity under Article 31-A.
- The retrospective amendment failed to serve a socio-economic purpose.
- Land transactions, including sales executed under the 2011 Act, could not be invalidated retrospectively.
- Titles transferred legally under a valid statute could not be arbitrarily undone by later amendments.
Title: Bhawar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others
