http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHARAN SINGH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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.