SC declares condition of lifelong service for gifted land deed as ‘forced labour’

NEW DELHI: In a case that brought to life several forgotten aspects of the country’s legal and sociopolitical history, the Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a claim to take back a piece of land gifted 70 years ago on grounds of non-compliance with an unusual condition: lifelong, unpaid service.

The verdict, delivered by justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale, not only upheld the rights of the recipients but also struck down the condition as a blatant violation of constitutional protections against exploitation and “slavery”.

Also Read: Women should not misuse cruelty law for ‘personal vendetta’ against husbands: Supreme Court

The dispute, which had its origins in 1953, revolved around a unique oral gift deed executed by a Punjab landlord, Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh. Singh had gifted 38 bighas and 8 biswas of land to Sanwalia, Ratiram and Sheochand, sons of one Chhailu, in recognition of their services. The gift came with a peculiar condition -- the recipients and their heirs were to continue serving the donor and his descendants for life.

Also Read: Judge should live like hermit, work like a horse; no place for flamboyance: SC

For decades, the arrangement appeared unchallenged. However, in 1998, Singh’s heirs, dissatisfied with the cessation of services , filed a suit seeking to revoke the gift and reclaim the land.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the plea, stating that the clause for perpetual service amounted to forced labour, prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. The bench observed that such conditions, which demanded unpaid service across generations, were not only illegal but also unconstitutional.

Also Read: Supreme Court restrains courts from passing orders on pleas seeking mosque surveys

“What would this be, if not ‘begar’ or forced labour? A gift which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services without any remuneration would amount to a ‘begar’ or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights of the donees (the recipients),” held the judgment, highlighting the oppressive nature of the stipulation. The court further remarked that enforcing such a clause in perpetuity would violate the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21).

The judgment also threw light on the socio-political realities of the time. In the early 1950s, India was witnessing sweeping land reforms aimed at redistributing wealth and dismantling the zamindari system. Landowners, anticipating legislation like the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act of 1953, sought ways to retain control over their holdings. One common method was gifting land to workers or aides, often with informal strings attached, the bench noted.

“The big zamindars were fully aware that surplus land would vest with the state...To safeguard their interests, they frequently transferred land through gifts or donations, sometimes accompanied by onerous conditions,” it pointed out.

The oral gift by Singh, made just months after the 1953 legislation came into force, reflects the socio-economic dynamics of that period.

“It is true again, that what we have here is a pure civil matter and considerations as we have just referred above are outside the scope of pure civil litigation. The answer to this would be that civil matters will undoubtedly be decided on facts and law as they exist and as they are applicable, but again in order to appreciate the facts we have to keep the context in mind. Context is always very important,” the bench highlighted.

The court also delved into the legal principles governing the dispute. While the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable in Punjab at the time, the court affirmed that its equitable principles, rooted in justice and good conscience, were relevant. Crucially, the validity of the gift was never questioned, and possession had been peacefully held by the donees’ heirs for over 45 years before the plaintiffs raised their claims. “This long delay not only weakens the plaintiffs’ case but also raises fundamental questions about the enforceability of such a condition,” the court held.

Furthermore, the court clarified that even if the condition were to be considered, it could only be understood as recognition of past services or, at most, an obligation limited to the donor’s lifetime. Extending it indefinitely to the heirs of the donees was, the court declared, beyond the pale of law and constitutional morality.