Subscribe
In Rohar Jagir village, nestled in Punjab’s Patiala district, little has changed in the 14 years since a landmark legal battle over shared community resources drew national attention. Despite a 2011 Supreme Court verdict, hailed as a watershed moment for governance of commons—shared natural resources such as water, forests and pastures—in India, the 7.2-hectare (ha) pond at the centre of the dispute remains encroached upon. The ruling, intended to safeguard commons, appears to have changed little for the people it was meant to protect—or for those it sought to penalise.
The 80 households that encroached upon the pond remain locked in limbo. Unable to occupy the houses they had built, the residents cling to the hope that one day they might gain legal access. While wealthier families have moved on, building new houses elsewhere, poorer families have neither been able to claim the dwellings they had built nor are benefitting from a restored pond.
The conflict began in 2003, when village resident Jagpal Singh attempted to build a house on the pond, officially designated as gair mumkin (uncultivable) land. His actions alarmed fellow resident Dev Singh and members of the gram panchayat, who opposed the encroachment. The parties first approached the district collector, then the joint development commissioner and later the Punjab and Haryana High Court, before landing in the Supreme Court (see ‘Protracted struggle’). In 2011, the apex court ordered the eviction of occupants from commons across India and mandated state governments to implement schemes for restoring these lands. The verdict allowed for regularisation only in “exceptional cases”, such as where leases were granted under government notifications to landless labourers or socially deprived members of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), or where public utilities such as schools already existed on the land.
The court stated that long duration of occupation, significant expenditures on construction, or political connections cannot be used to regularise such encroachments.
The case has since been cited in over 460 high court judgements, according to an analysis by Land Conflict Watch (LCW), a database tracking disputes over natural resources in India (see ‘Ripple effect’). Yet its impact on Rohar Jagir has been negligible. Immediately after the verdict, the local administration sealed the encroaching houses. As a result, the owners no longer reside in them but instead use the surrounding areas as cowsheds or for storage. Meanwhile, the gram panchayat views the land as disputed and is hesitant to take action due to potential backlash. “Demolishing the houses could provoke unrest,” Lucky, the village sarpanch, tells Down To Earth. “Many of the houses belong to poor families and granting some access to them gives the people temporary relief,” he adds.
The encroachments have reduced the pond from 7.2 ha to just 4-6 ha today. The remaining area is also choked with water hyacinth, sewage and waste, says Lucky, who adds that the pond was vital for livestock, supported pastoral migrants and recharged groundwater.
Sandeep Sharma, who lost his home and three other family properties following the Supreme Court order, believes there must be a long-term solution. “There should be compensation or alternative land allocation,” says Sharma. “Many of us did not know we were living on encroached land for generations.”
The 2011 Supreme Court ruling brought renewed attention to commons, which, according to a 2015 policy paper by independent researchers Shalini Bhutani and Kanchi Kohli, account for 15-25 per cent of India’s landmass. “It prompted states like erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Mizoram and Rajasthan to formulate new laws, amend existing ones, or issue fresh executive orders,” says Pooja Chandran of the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), a Gujarat-based non-profit. For instance, Jharkhand invoked its Panchayati Raj Act, 2001, which included provisions for reclaiming commons, while Manipur used the existing Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) rules to comply with the 2011 judgement.
In 2022, the Bombay High Court demanded a roadmap from the government of Maharashtra to remove 222,153 encroachments on grazing lands but later instructed officials to halt proceedings against the alleged encroachers. Most recently, on December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court directed Rajasthan’s forest department to map its sacred groves and notify them as forests and community reserves. The state, in 2019, had established Public Land Protection Cells in each district to address encroachments on shared lands. The cells redirected at least 420 cases to the High Court. Madhya Pradesh and Assam followed suit in 2021 and 2023, respectively, by creating similar district-level cells.
While the 2011 judgement is celebrated for its potential to safeguard commons, its implementation has often exacerbated the struggles of marginalised groups. A detailed analysis of 1,630 cases by LCW, citing the Jagpal Singh judgement reveals significant systemic inequities. In just 21.35 per cent of cases was the identity of encroachers mentioned, and among these, over 56 per cent involved individuals from SCs or STs, or landless communities. This reality stands in stark con-trast to the judicial reasoning in the judgement, which presumed encroachers were predominantly powerful or influential individuals.
Moreover, the rights of encroachers—such as the right to a fair hearing, advance notice or housing—were frequently overlooked. According to LCW, courts failed to consider these rights in 64.25 per cent of cases, resulting in an eviction rate of 58 per cent. In contrast, when courts deliberated on these rights, eviction rates dropped to 42 per cent, indicating that recognising encroachers’ rights leads to more equitable outcomes. Nomadic and tribal communities have also faced the brunt of eviction drives, often labelled as encroachers on land they have traditionally inhabited. LCW highlights targeted actions against tribal communities. Such evictions have disrupted livelihoods and heightened the vulnerability of the poorest groups.
While some states had laws allowing the regularisation of encroachments by vulnerable groups, the post-Jagpal Singh landscape has seen a shift towards stricter eviction policies, often without provisions for rehabilitation. These challenges are amplified by governance lapses. Gram panchayats, re-sponsible for protecting commons, have sometimes colluded with encroachers or prioritised revenue generation over ecological preservation. In Kerala, some panchayats exploited commons for sand mining and other activities, as per LCW.
“The 2011 judgement prioritised restoring commons to communities, but its implementation has focused disproportionately on evictions. Without directions for ecological restoration or ensuring community access, the verdict’s intent is lost,” says Anmol Gupta of LCW. The way forward lies in adopting locally relevant solutions that consider social hierarchies and ecological dependencies.
“A one-size-fits-all approach cannot achieve just and sustainable outcomes. Customised strategies are essential for meaningful governance,” says researcher Kanchi Kohli. Chandran of FES adds that the country needs transparent grievance mechanisms and participatory decision-making processes. “Custodians must be held accountable, but they also need adequate resources and authority to protect commons effectively,” she says.
How a village feud over encroachment reached the Supreme Court
2003: Residents of Rohar Jagir village in Punjab begin constructing houses along the village pond. A dispute arises between residents Jagpal Singh and Dev Singh over constructing on the waterbody.
2005: Dev Singh and the gram panchayat approach the district collector, who sides with Jagpal Singh, directing the panchayat to recover the land cost and regularise the construction. Dissatisfied, the community appeals to the joint development commissioner, who orders the eviction of the occupants.
2007: Punjab government permits regularisation of the unauthorised occupants. But the gram panchayat refrains from regularising them.
2010: Jagpal Singh moves the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which rules in favour of the community, stating that unauthorised occupants of panchayat properties deserve no legal or equitable sympathy. The court identifies 80 illegal houses on the pond. Jagpal Singh appeals to the Supreme Court.
2011: The Supreme Court orders the eviction of illegal occupants from commons nationwide. The judgement is cited in 460 high court rulings.
2024: Despite the verdict, the encroaching houses stand in Rohar Jagir and are used for storage. Fears of backlash prevent demolition, and the pond’s condition worsens.
Based on the 2011 Supreme Court order and conversations with Jagpal Singh, the petitioner of the case
The reporter is a recipient of Promise of Commons Media Fellowship 2024, on the significance of Commons and its Community Stewardship.
This was first published in the 1-15 January, 2025 Print edition of Down To Earth