HC strikes down Haryana law curtailing dholidars’ land rights as unconstitutional

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana legislation and a notification, which retrospectively nullified the proprietary rights conferred on Dholidars – persons receiving a small plot as a religious gift with the right to use and inherit it.

The court ruled that the amendments arbitrarily took away vested land rights, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri also ruled that the legislation did not enjoy protection under Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. It also held that the law was expropriatory in nature and did not qualify as agrarian reform.

A ‘dholi’ is defined in the Punjab settlement manual as deathbed gift of a small plot of land to a Brahmin by landowners for some social service. A ‘dholi’ on receiving the land enjoys the exclusive right to use that property and it was also inherited by his next generation. They were able to have proprietary rights over the land allotted to them as Dholi, following the introduction of the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 2010.

The petitioners contended that a notification dated August 23, 2022, was, however, issued vide Haryana Act No. 26 of 2022 under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 2018.

The petitioners’ counsel and Amicus Curiae Anupam Gupta jointly submitted that the amendment, applicable retrospectively from June 9, 2011, was liable to be struck down as it affected and disturbs the rights created in favour of the persons concerned, under the Act of 2010.

“After a lapse of about 10 years since its implementation, the rights bestowed upon the class of persons are arbitrarily taken away, which is violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” it was contended.

The court upheld the petitioners’ submissions, ruling that a retrospective amendment that negated existing property rights was legally impermissible. It observed that the amendment effectively expropriated the vested rights without due compensation or due process. A statute that arbitrarily withdrew property rights without compensation or hearing was ex-facie unconstitutional,” the Bench added.

The court also held that the amendment’s attempt to nullify past land transactions, even those made in accordance with the 2010 Act was unconstitutional. The Bench added that Article 31-A of the Constitution, which granted immunity to agrarian reform laws, did not shield the Haryana amendment. The law, the court noted, did not further any genuine agrarian reform but instead sought to take away proprietary rights from the Dholidars, making it an expropriatory measure rather than a redistributive agrarian policy.