From encroachment to legal ownership

The Haryana government's recent policy to regularise unauthorised occupation of village panchayat land through a payment mechanism is a significant development, reflecting complex challenges in land governance, social equity, and local administration in India. To truly grasp its implications, we must delve into its background, stakeholder dynamics, and constitutional underpinnings.

**Background Context: The Entanglement of Land and Livelihoods**

Land in India is not merely a commodity; it's intricately linked to identity, livelihood, and social status. Village panchayat lands, often referred to as 'shamlat deh' in Haryana and Punjab, are common lands meant for collective use by the village community – for grazing, fuel wood collection, cremation grounds, ponds, and other public purposes. Historically, these common lands have been vital for the sustenance of marginalised communities, particularly the landless, who depend on them for their livestock and other basic needs. However, over decades, these lands have faced rampant encroachment due to various factors: population pressure, lack of affordable housing, economic necessity, weak enforcement by local authorities, and sometimes, political patronage. This has led to a proliferation of land disputes, burdening the judicial system and creating social friction within villages. The problem is exacerbated by incomplete land records and the often-ambiguous legal status of common lands, making their protection and management a formidable task for Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).

**What Happened: Haryana's Regularisation Drive**

The Haryana government has introduced a policy to regularise these unauthorised occupations, allowing occupants to gain legal ownership by making a payment. The stated objectives are commendable: to reduce the massive backlog of land-related litigation in courts and to bring finality to long-standing disputes. The policy essentially provides a pathway for those who have illegally occupied public land to convert their encroachment into legal ownership, provided they can pay the prescribed amount. This move is presented as a pragmatic solution to a deeply entrenched problem, aiming to clear legal ambiguities and potentially generate revenue for the panchayats.

**Key Stakeholders and Their Interests**

Several stakeholders are directly impacted. The **Haryana Government** is the implementing authority, seeking to streamline land administration and reduce judicial burden. **Village Panchayats** are the legal owners and custodians of these lands, and their financial health and autonomy could be affected – while they might gain revenue, they also lose control over common resources. The **Occupants/Encroachers** are the primary beneficiaries, gaining legal title to land they previously held illegally, provided they have the financial means. However, **Marginalised Households and the Landless** are potentially the biggest losers. Their access to vital common resources, essential for their livelihoods and social welfare, is curtailed as these lands are privatised. **Civil Society Organisations and Legal Experts** often raise concerns about the policy's equity and its potential to legitimise illegal acts, thereby undermining the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent.

**Why This Matters for India: A Precedent with Profound Implications**

This policy holds significant implications for India. Firstly, it touches upon the core principles of **land reforms** initiated post-independence, which aimed at equitable distribution and preventing concentration of land. While not directly reversing land ceilings, it indirectly legitimises the appropriation of common resources, potentially deepening socio-economic inequalities. Secondly, it impacts **local governance and the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992**. The Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution lists land improvement, land reforms, land consolidation, and soil conservation as subjects for Panchayats (Entry 11). By allowing the state government to regularise panchayat land, it can be seen as either assisting or, conversely, eroding the autonomy of PRIs in managing their own resources. Thirdly, from a **social justice** perspective, the policy raises serious questions. Article 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) mandate that the state should direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good, and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Critics argue that regularising encroachment for a fee benefits those with the capacity to pay, often at the expense of the truly marginalised who rely on these commons but cannot afford to purchase the land. This risks converting 'common good' into 'private gain' and exacerbating rural poverty and landlessness.

**Historical Context and Future Implications**

The history of common lands in India is one of gradual erosion, starting even before independence, but accelerating post-1947 due to agricultural expansion, population growth, and weak governance. The Haryana policy, while aiming to resolve disputes, could inadvertently encourage further encroachment in anticipation of future regularisation drives. It creates a moral hazard, signalling that illegal occupation might eventually be rewarded. The policy also bypasses the established legal framework for land acquisition or transfer, which typically involves compensation and rehabilitation, further complicating the legal landscape. Future implications include potential legal challenges to the policy's constitutional validity, increased social stratification in rural areas, and a further shrinking of common property resources, which are crucial for ecological balance and the livelihoods of vulnerable communities. Other states might consider similar policies, potentially leading to a nationwide trend of privatising common lands, with long-term detrimental effects on environmental sustainability and social equity.

**Constitutional and Legal Framework**

While the Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right (after the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, it became a constitutional right under Article 300A), the state's power to deal with property must still adhere to legal procedures and public interest. Policies like this must be scrutinised against the backdrop of DPSP (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) and the spirit of the 73rd Amendment, which empowered PRIs to manage local resources. State-specific Panchayat Acts, such as the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, define the powers and responsibilities of village panchayats regarding land management. Any policy that impacts panchayat land must ideally align with these constitutional and statutory provisions, ensuring that the 'common good' remains paramount and the rights of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable, are protected.