Encroacher Has No Vested Right to Regularisation of Shamlat Land; Section 5A(1A) Only Enables Panchayat to Sell Land Subject to Statutory Conditions: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 05 August 2026
Citation: CWP-22882-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is merely an enabling provision and does not confer any vested right upon an encroacher to claim ownership or regularisation of Panchayat land. The provision enables a Panchayat, with prior approval of the State Government, to sell non-cultivable shamlat deh land only upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including that the house must have been constructed on or before 31 March 2004. Since the petitioner failed to produce any proof of construction before the cut-off date and was admittedly in unauthorised occupation, rejection of his application was valid. The Court further held that neither the Act, the 2024 Amendment nor the applicable SOP mandated a personal hearing before deciding such an application; therefore, no violation of principles of natural justice was established.
Summary: The petitioner, an admitted encroacher upon Panchayat land, sought regularisation of his unauthorised possession under Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In an earlier writ petition, he had withdrawn his challenge to the eviction-related notice and order and obtained liberty to pursue his application for regularisation. Consequently, he was barred from reopening the challenge to those proceedings.
His application was rejected on 30 March 2026 because there was no proof of construction prior to 31 March 2004, the Gram Panchayat had rejected his request, and the land had already been earmarked for construction of Ambedkar Park for public benefit. Spot inspection further revealed only a boundary wall on the disputed land and no house, while the petitioner’s house existed elsewhere.
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that he had not been afforded a personal hearing, the Court observed that Section 5A(1A) does not create an enforceable right to obtain Panchayat land but merely enables its transfer where statutory conditions are fulfilled. Neither the governing legislation nor the SOP required a personal hearing. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of proving construction on or before 31 March 2004, the competent authority had valid grounds to reject his application.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition as meritless and declined to interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for regularisation/purchase of the Panchayat land. The Court upheld the rejection since the petitioner failed to establish construction before the statutory cut-off date and had no vested right to seek transfer of land under Section 5A(1A).