Grant, Use and Relinquishment of Unalienated Land (Pasturage, s. 72) — Land Law Notes

Grant, Use and Relinquishment of Unalienated Land (Pasturage, s. 72)

Not all land is privately held. A great deal of every village is Government land — the grazing common (gomala), the tank bed, the waste — held for the community’s shared use. Who may take it, use it, or give it back is governed by the KLR Act’s rules on unalienated land. A recurring problem drops a constitutional-law twist into this quiet corner: villagers challenge a Deputy Commissioner’s grazing order as violating their fundamental rights. The trick is to answer it as an administrative-law question about the officer’s statutory power, not as a pure fundamental-rights essay.

What “unalienated land” is, and how it is dealt with

First, the vocabulary. Alienated land is land whose land-revenue rights the State has granted away to someone (an inamdar, a jagirdar); unalienated land is ordinary land held directly of the Government, whose revenue the State itself takes. Government-owned unoccupied land within a village — commons, waste, pasturage — is administered under Chapter VII/VIII of the Act. Three actions matter for the essay: assignment/grant, use (especially pasturage), and relinquishment.

A. Grant and assignment of Government land (ss. 69–71, 91–93)

Assignment for special purposes (s. 71). The Government may assign its unoccupied village land for free pasturage for village cattle, forest reserves, or any other public purpose; once so assigned, the land may not be used for any other purpose without the Deputy Commissioner’s sanction.
Disposal/grant of Government land (s. 69). The Government (and named officers) may dispose of Government land for agriculture, industry, public utility or building.
Grant of unoccupied land on conditions (ss. 91–93). Unoccupied land may be granted to a person on conditions and permission taken up to occupy it; on grant the person becomes an occupant.

B. Use — regulation of pasturage (s. 72)

Section 72 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to regulate the use of pasturage on land assigned for grazing — deciding which cattle, of which villages, may graze where, and on what conditions — so a limited common is shared in an orderly way rather than over-grazed by all comers. This is a statutory administrative power, exercisable reasonably.

C. Rights of occupants and relinquishment (ss. 99–104)

Rights of occupants (ss. 99–101). An occupant of granted/unalienated land has the use and enjoyment of it subject to the Act; occupancy is heritable and (subject to sanction) transferable (ss. 100–101).
Relinquishment (s. 102). An occupant may give up (relinquish) his land by giving prescribed notice to the Government before the start of a revenue year, so as to be free of future revenue — but he cannot relinquish so as to prejudice others’ rights, and cannot dump encumbered land on the State.
Right of way (s. 103) to relinquished/forfeited land is preserved, and a person unauthorisedly occupying Government land may be summarily evicted (s. 104) and penalised (s. 94).

Quick orientation on the 6W:

Who — the Government / Deputy Commissioner grants, assigns and regulates; the occupant uses and may relinquish.
What — grant/assignment, regulated use (pasturage), and relinquishment of unalienated (Government) land.
When — assignment for public purposes at any time; relinquishment by notice before a revenue year; eviction on unauthorised occupation.
Where — Government village lands — commons, pasturage, waste.
Why — to manage shared public land fairly and keep Government land in productive, lawful use.
How — assignment under s. 71, regulation of pasturage under s. 72, grant on conditions under ss. 91–93, relinquishment under s. 102, eviction under s. 104.

Section 72, KLR Act, 1964 (substance): “The Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, regulate the use of any land assigned under section 71 for the free pasturage of the cattle of a village or villages, or for any other public purpose.”

In Simple Terms: When Government land has been set aside as a grazing common, the Deputy Commissioner is the officer who decides how that common is used — whose cattle, from which villages, may graze on it and on what terms. It is a power to manage a shared resource, not a private favour.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — grazing reserved to two villages, challenged under Arts. 14 & 21 (the Feb 2025 problem)

Facts. The Deputy Commissioner, using s. 72, reserves the grazing on a free-pasturage common to the cattle of only two villages. Surrounding villages challenge the order as violating Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life/livelihood). Will they succeed?

Rule. Section 72 confers on the Deputy Commissioner a statutory power to regulate the use of assigned pasturage. Article 14 forbids not classification but unreasonable classification; a classification is valid if it rests on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. An order within a valid statutory power, made on reasonable grounds, is not struck down merely because some are excluded.

Apply. The DC is not acting arbitrarily but exercising s. 72. Reserving a limited common to the two villages that traditionally and proximately depend on it is a reasonable classification — the differentia (which villages the common historically serves / adjoins) has a rational nexus to the object (preventing over-grazing and preserving the pasture). It is therefore not hostile discrimination under Art. 14, and regulating a shared common does not by itself destroy livelihood under Art. 21. The order stands unless the excluded villages show it is mala fide or wholly irrational.

Decoy. The Art. 14/21 framing invites a pure fundamental-rights answer. The trap is to forget that this is a valid statutory power (s. 72) and that reasonable classification is permitted; answer on administrative-law reasonableness, not on rights in the abstract.

Conclusion. The surrounding villages will likely fail: the DC has statutory authority under s. 72 and the reservation is a reasonable classification, not arbitrary discrimination.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Unalienated (Government) Land"]:::root
    ROOT --> G["GRANT / ASSIGNMENT"]:::root
    G --> G1["s.71 assign for pasturage / forest /<br/>public purpose (no other use without DC sanction)"]:::leaf
    G --> G2["s.69 dispose for agri/industry/building"]:::leaf
    G --> G3["ss.91-93 grant unoccupied land on conditions"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> U["USE"]:::root
    U --> U1["s.72 DC regulates pasturage<br/>(which villages' cattle, terms)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> R["OCCUPANT & RELINQUISHMENT"]:::root
    R --> R1["ss.99-101 occupancy heritable/transferable"]:::leaf
    R --> R2["s.102 relinquish by notice before revenue year"]:::leaf
    R --> R3["s.104 summary eviction of unauthorised occupant"]:::warn
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef warn fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab (2011) — village common land (grazing land, gomal, tank beds) is meant for the use of the community and must be protected; the State holds and regulates it for the villagers’ common benefit, so its use may be lawfully managed rather than left to encroachment.
State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) — the classic Article 14 test: a classification is valid if it rests on an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to the object; equality forbids unreasonable classification, not all classification — the standard by which a s. 72 pasturage order is judged.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Land Law topics