Surplus Area Land Ceiling Laws: Application to Religious and Charitable Institutions in Punjab

Analysis of Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in RSA-250-1983 (O&M) dated May 6, 2025: Legal and Factual Summary with Strategic Recommendations for the Financial Commissioner, Revenue.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Long shot by the author, from the Haryana side of the Civil Secretariat.

Author

Karan Bir Singh Sidhu is a retired IAS officer of the Punjab cadre. He served as Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab in two separate tenures and is the former Special Chief Secretary. The views expressed herein are personal and grounded in long-standing institutional experience.

Are Religious and Charitable Institutions in Punjab Subject to Land Ceiling Laws?

A landmark judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, delivered on 6 May 2025 in RSA-250-1983 (O&M), decisively addresses a long-standing and significant legal question: Are religious and charitable institutions in Punjab subject to land ceiling restrictions under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972? The High Court’s 14-page ruling, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain, is grounded in a careful interpretation of Section 14 of the Act and a meticulous examination of historical revenue records, including those from pre-Partition Pakistan. It affirms the exemption of such institutions from the ambit of land ceiling laws, provided specific statutory conditions are satisfied. In doing so, the judgment resolves complex issues concerning the classification of religious trust property, the administrative limitations on correcting revenue records, and the jurisdiction of civil courts vis-à-vis surplus land declarations. The case carries far-reaching implications for revenue administration, the protection of institutional landholdings, and the broader legal framework governing post-Partition land allotments in Punjab.

Factual Matrix of the Case

Background and Land History

The dispute centres on land originally belonging to Dam Dama Sahib Una shrine located in Killa Jawahar Singh Wala, Gujaranwala (Pakistan) before Partition. The shrine was managed by the Bedi family, descendants of Guru Nanak, with Baba Davinder Singh serving as the manager of the religious institution. Revenue records from 1946–47 clearly established that 133 standard acres out of a total of 290 standard acres belonged to the religious trust, while the remaining 157 acres constituted personal property of the Bedi family.

Following the 1947 Partition, the rehabilitation authorities made a critical error by allotting the entire land measuring 1440 kanals, 8 marlas in village Khiala Bilanda, District Hoshiarpur to Tikka Davinder Singh in his personal capacity, without distinguishing between land held personally and land held on behalf of the religious institution. This improper allotment formed the foundation for subsequent disputes when authorities declared the land surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, treating it as personal property of Davinder Singh and his successor Baba Madhusudan Singh.

Litigation History and Jurisdictional Issues

The plaintiffs, claiming to be worshippers of the shrine, filed suit in 1979 seeking a declaration that 133/290 share of the allotted land belonged to the religious institution and could not be declared surplus. The case underwent multiple judicial reviews, with the trial court initially dismissing the suit for lack of evidence regarding the religious nature of the property. The Lower Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding that the revenue records from Pakistan conclusively proved the religious ownership of the 133/290 share of the disputed land.

A significant jurisdictional challenge arose when the High Court in 2010 dismissed the case, ruling that Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 barred civil court jurisdiction over matters relating to surplus land declarations. This decision was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No. 1365 of 2021, which was allowed on 9 July 2024, with the apex court holding that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit primarily on jurisdictional grounds.

Legal Principles and Judicial Findings

Application of Section 14 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972

The High Court’s 2025 judgment has comprehensively analysed Section 14 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, which provides exemption for lands belonging to religious or charitable institutions of a public nature. The court established four essential criteria for claiming exemption under this provision: (i) the land must belong to a religious or charitable institution rather than its mahant, mohtamim or manager; (ii) the institution must be of a public nature; (iii) the institution must have existed immediately before the commencement of the Act; and (iv) the land or income therefrom must be utilised for institutional purposes.

The High Court found that all four conditions were satisfied in the present case. The revenue records from Pakistan conclusively proved ownership by Dam Dama Sahib Una shrine; the institution was undisputedly a Gurdwara of public nature existing prior to 1947; and evidence demonstrated continued use of land income for religious purposes, including organising langars for the poor. Significantly, the Court emphasised that Section 14 operates as a non obstante clause, meaning its provisions prevail “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority”.

Revenue Record Sanctity and Correction Powers

The judgment clarified important principles regarding revenue record corrections and the limits of administrative authority. The Court distinguished between legitimate corrections of clerical errors under paragraphs 7.29 and 7.30 of the Punjab Land Records Manual and substantive changes requiring civil court adjudication. The Financial Commissioner’s power to correct revenue records is strictly limited to clerical mistakes appearing in previous jamabandis that have inadvertently crept into current records.

The Court reinforced the principle established in Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which provides that persons aggrieved by revenue record entries must seek remedy through civil courts under the Specific Relief Act rather than through revenue authorities. This creates a clear demarcation between administrative correction powers and judicial determination of substantive rights.

Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

Strategic Analysis for Financial Commissioner

Assessment of Appeal Prospects

The prospects of a successful Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the State of Punjab before the Supreme Court appear limited, both on substantive and procedural grounds. In essence, the High Court has merely articulated the interpretive tests for the application of Section 14, which is already embedded within the statutory framework and explicitly exempts religious and public charitable institutions from the operation of land ceiling laws. Consequently, filing an SLP by the State would neither be advisable nor desirable. The judgment reflects a careful and consistent application of established legal principles, with particular emphasis on the non obstante clause in Section 14 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Notably, the Supreme Court has already indicated its concurrence by allowing the earlier civil appeal and directing adjudication on merits, thereby signalling alignment with the High Court’s present reasoning.

The discretionary nature of SLP jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution requires demonstration of substantial questions of law or gross injustice. The present case primarily involves application of well-settled principles regarding religious land exemptions and revenue record interpretation, making it difficult to establish grounds warranting Supreme Court intervention.

Protective Measures for Religious Property

Unsolicited Administrative Recommendations

However, in view of the totality of circumstances arising from the judgment, the following unsolicited advice is respectfully submitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab:

1. Immediate Mutation Based on Judgment
   Immediately mutate the requisite number of acres, with specific Khasra numbers, in favour of the shrine on the basis of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is binding on all the parties interested therein.

2. Presentation of Trust and Trustees
   Require the trustees to formally present the trust deed and identify the trustees, so that it becomes a matter of public record as to the terms and conditions in accordance with which the shrine is being managed.

3. Entry in Revenue Record to Prevent Alienation
   Make an entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati and record the report number in red ink in the “Remarks” column of the Jamabandi stating that this property, belonging to the shrine, cannot be sold except with the permission of the competent court.

4. Compliance with Punjab Land Reforms Act in Respect of Remaining Khasra Numbers
   As regards the remaining Khasra numbers, it should be ascertained whether any person or family, as defined under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, is holding more than 18 standard acres. If so, the concerned Collector should be directed to initiate proceedings in respect of this personal property and decide it in accordance with law.

5. Possible Appeal in Supreme Court
   It is likely that this Regular Second Appeal, decided by the High Court, may be challenged by private respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, through an SLP. In such an eventuality, the matter should be diligently defended.

6. Role of SGPC in Determining Nature of the Institution
   It may also be expedient to bring the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) into the picture, to consider whether this property is in the nature of a public Gurdwara, in which case, the management of the same should be taken over by SGPC within the statutory framework of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Summing Up

Implementing Judicial Mandate: Immediate Administrative Priorities

The High Court’s judgment dated 6 May 2025 represents a robust and well-reasoned application of established legal doctrine, effectively safeguarding religious land from unlawful appropriation or misclassification. It now falls upon the revenue administration to act decisively and in full alignment with the judicial mandate. Compliance must be ensured through immediate administrative steps such as mutation of the religious share in favour of the shrine, registration and formal recognition of trustees, proper annotation of land records to reflect statutory exemptions, and a thorough reassessment of holdings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Such actions will not only fulfil the letter and spirit of the judgment but will also uphold the sanctity and institutional continuity of religious endowments for future generations.

A Broader Mandate: Review of Agro-Forestry Company Landholdings

Before concluding, we may submit that it may be instructive for the Financial Commissioner, Revenue to undertake a comprehensive, state-wide review of the extensive agricultural landholdings accumulated by the so-called agro-forestry companies such as the Golden Forests Group, the Pearls Group, the Fauja Singh Group (possibly connected to the Quark IT enterprise), and the Sahara Group. Notwithstanding the role of Supreme Court-appointed liquidators tasked with returning monies to defrauded investors, it remains a pertinent question whether the State of Punjab is at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act in respect of these humongous land holdings. Subject to obtaining the prior approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where necessary, the State may examine the viability of invoking land ceiling provisions and pursue such cases to their logical and lawful conclusion. Such a move would not only reinforce statutory land reform objectives but also restore legal and ethical order in the management of agricultural land resources across Punjab.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges Advocate Vipul Joshi, who brought this significant judgment to the author’s attention and generously provided valuable inputs during the course of this analysis. He may be contacted at: vipuljoshi.adv@gmail.com.