2001 (9) TMI 1156 - SC - Indian Laws

Vesting of Easementary Rights in the State- Interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act 1974 - land in dispute is being used for grazing cattle cutting fuel wood and for other common purposes - Meaning of word encumbrance - HELD THAT - In the present case Section 3 of the Act starts with an non obstante clause. Notwithstanding contained in any law agreement instrument custom or usage or any decree of the court all rights title and interests in the land shall stand extinguished and all such rights title and interests shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. If we accept the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that easementary right being over the land and the same has not vested in the State under Section 3 of the Act the result would be that the land would carry burden or charge affecting possession interests and rights in the land. Such a meaning cannot be given to the expression free from encumbrances . When the legislature has used the expression free from encumbrances it means the vesting of land in the State is without any burden or charge on the land including that of easementary right. We are therefore of the view that the consequence of vesting of right in the land free from all encumbrances is that the interest right and title to the land including the easementary right stood extinguished and such rights vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus we hold that under Section 3 of the Act all rights title and interests including the easementary rights stood extinguished and all such rights title and interests vested in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not disputed that the land in dispute is a pasture land and is being used for grazing. Section 8 of the Act provides the purpose for which land vested in the State Government can be utilised. One of the purposes for which such land can be utilised is for grazing the cattles and the State Government is required to allot the same as pasture land. If the purpose of vesting is to provide land to village community for grazing there is no reason why the land be not be used as a pasture land for grazing. However we leave this question open to be decided by the State government. Hence we are of the view that the courts below fell in error in holding that the easementary right has not vested in the State. We therefore set aside the judgment under challenge. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, specifically regarding the vesting of easementary rights in the State u/s 3 of the Act.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Vesting of Easementary Rights in the State:
The case involved a dispute over the vesting of easementary rights in the State under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. The land in question was originally shamilat land used for grazing purposes by the village community. The Act provided for the vesting of all rights, title, and interests in the land in the State free from encumbrances. The appellant argued that easementary rights were extinguished and vested in the State, while the respondents contended that only the right in the land vested in the State, not the easementary rights. The court analyzed the Act and relevant legal precedents to determine the scope of vesting under Section 3 of the Act.

Decision and Reasoning:
The court examined the language of Section 3 of the Act, which stated that all rights in the land vested in the Gram Panchayat stood extinguished and vested in the State free from encumbrances. The court considered the meaning of "encumbrances" and cited legal cases where easementary rights were considered encumbrances on the land. The court held that when the Act stated "free from encumbrances," it meant that all rights, including easementary rights, in the land stood extinguished and vested in the State. The court emphasized that the purpose of vesting the land in the State was to ensure it was free from any burdens or charges, including easementary rights.

Conclusion and Order:
The court concluded that under Section 3 of the Act, all rights, title, and interests, including easementary rights, stood extinguished and vested in the State free from encumbrances. The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeal. The court also highlighted the provision in the Act for utilizing the land for grazing purposes and left the decision on the specific use of the land to the State government.

In summary, the Supreme Court held that under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, easementary rights were deemed to have vested in the State along with other rights in the land, ensuring that the land was free from any encumbrances.