Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which partly allowed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The amendment inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, along with an Explanation. The inserted clause brought lands reserved for common purposes under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the management and control of which vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A, within the definition of shamilat deh. The Explanation clarified that lands recorded in the column of ownership as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan, or Mushtarka Malkan shall be shamilat deh.
The background involved landowners who had contributed shares of their holdings to form a common pool of land known as shamilat deh for village common purposes. They filed writ petitions before the High Court aggrieved by the amendment. The High Court initially struck down the amendment in 1995, but the Supreme Court in 1998 remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Article 31-A of the Constitution. On remand, the Full Bench partly allowed the writ petitions and issued directions regarding mutation entries. Against that judgment, the State of Haryana filed Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014. In 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and upheld the amendment, but a review petition filed by Karnail Singh was allowed in 2024, recalling the 2022 judgment and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing.
In the present proceedings, the appellant State argued that the High Court's judgment was self-contradictory because it directed cancellation of mutations despite holding that lands reserved for common purposes vest in the State or Gram Panchayat. The State contended that lands contributed on pro-rata basis during consolidation proceedings fall within the definition of shamilat deh, vest in the State or Gram Panchayat irrespective of actual use, and that returning bachat lands to proprietors would cause fragmentation contrary to the Consolidation Act of 1948. The respondent landowners argued that the amendment arbitrarily expanded the definition of shamilat deh, deprived them of proprietary rights without compensation violating Article 31-A and 300A, and that unutilized bachat lands should revert to them. The court heard arguments on these issues, including the applicability of stare decisis to earlier Constitution Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, and Bhagat Ram. The provided text of the judgment ends during submissions and does not include the final decision.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Agrarian Reforms and Property Rights - Validity of Amendment Expanding Definition of Shamilat Deh - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 2(g)(6); Constitution of India, Articles 31-A, 300A - The amendment inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) and an Explanation to bring lands reserved for common purposes under Section 18 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 within the definition of shamilat deh. Landowners challenged the amendment as arbitrary and violative of Article 31-A; the High Court partly allowed the writ petitions. The Supreme Court was required to determine constitutional validity after the matter was restored following review. Held that the appeal was heard afresh; final decision not included in the provided excerpt (Paras 2.1-2.9, 4-13).
B) Property Law - Common Purpose Lands and Bachat Lands - Vesting of Unutilized Lands in Gram Panchayat - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 18, 23-A; Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 2(g)(6) - Dispute pertained to whether bachat lands not actually used for common purposes remain with landowners or vest in State/Gram Panchayat. Appellant contended vesting complete upon finalization of consolidation scheme; respondents contended unutilized lands do not become shamilat deh. Held that the issue was argued; final determination not included in the excerpt (Paras 6-13).
C) Judicial Review - High Court Directions on Mutation Entries - Consistency of Orders - Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 - The High Court while upholding vesting directed cancellation of mutations in favour of State; appellant contended this was self-contradictory. The Supreme Court considered this challenge. Held that final disposition not included in the excerpt (Paras 4-5, 10).
D) Precedent - Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Constitution Bench Judgments - Binding Effect of Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram - Constitution of India, Article 141 - The court indicated it would consider prior Constitution Bench decisions on scope of shamilat deh and agrarian reforms; final analysis not included in the excerpt (Paras 24-53, 58-62).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is constitutionally valid under Articles 31-A and 300A; whether unutilized bachat lands reserved for common purposes vest in State/Gram Panchayat or revert to proprietors; whether High Court's directions to cancel mutation entries were self-contradictory; applicability of doctrine of stare decisis to earlier Constitution Bench judgments
Law Points
- Validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act
- 1961
- Scope of shamilat deh
- Vesting of lands reserved for common purposes under Sections 18 and 23-A of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act
- 1948
- Bachat lands not utilized for common purposes
- Doctrine of stare decisis
- Article 31-A and Article 300A of Constitution of India
- Judgment cannot be read as statute
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (09) 54
Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Vinay Navare, Manoj Swarup, Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal challenging constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 which amended Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) and an Explanation, bringing certain lands into the definition of shamilat deh.
Remedy Sought
Appellant State sought to set aside or modify the High Court judgment partly allowing writ petitions and directing cancellation of mutations; respondent landowners sought to uphold the High Court decision and challenge vesting of unutilized common purpose lands in State/Gram Panchayat.
Filing Reason
Landowners contributed shares of their holdings to form a common pool of land called shamilat deh for village common purposes; the amendment allegedly expanded the definition arbitrarily and deprived them of proprietary rights without acquisition through due process, violating Articles 31-A and 300A of the Constitution.
Previous Decisions
High Court Full Bench in 1995 struck down Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992; Supreme Court in 1998 remanded the matter for reconsideration under Article 31-A; on remand, High Court Full Bench partly allowed writ petitions and issued directions regarding mutation entries; Supreme Court in 2022 allowed appeal and upheld the amendment, but review petition was allowed in 2024, recalling the 2022 judgment and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing.
Issues
Constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in light of Articles 31-A and 300A
Whether lands reserved for common purposes but not actually utilized (bachat lands) vest in State/Gram Panchayat under Sections 18 and 23-A of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 or revert to proprietors
Whether the High Court's directions to cancel mutation entries in favour of State were self-contradictory and liable to be set aside
Applicability of doctrine of stare decisis and binding effect of earlier Constitution Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, and Bhagat Ram
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant State argued that the High Court judgment was self-contradictory because it held lands reserved for common purposes vest in State or Gram Panchayat but directed cancellation of mutations in their favour.
Appellant State submitted that lands contributed on pro-rata basis during consolidation proceedings fall within definition of shamilat deh and vest in State or Gram Panchayat irrespective of actual use; bachat lands could not be returned to proprietors as that would cause fragmentation contrary to Consolidation Act of 1948.
Appellant State contended that Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 is merely clarificatory and does not divest proprietors of ownership rights, hence not hit by Articles 31-A and 300A.
Respondent landowners argued that they remained in possession and cultivation from inception and could not be deprived of proprietary rights without acquisition through due process; the amendment arbitrarily expanded definition of shamilat deh and amounted to compulsory acquisition without compensation violating Article 31-A.
Respondent landowners submitted that unutilized bachat lands should revert to proprietors as they do not fall within shamilat deh; management and control of such lands would not vest in Gram Panchayat under Sections 18 and 23-A of Consolidation Act and Rule 16(ii) of Consolidation Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - ... (6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act. Explanation - Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.
128.Consequently, we hold that Act 9 of 1992, the amending Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity. The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro rata cut had to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors.
The Review Petition is allowed. The judgment and order of this Court dated 7th April 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to the file. The appeal is directed to be listed for hearing peremptorily on 7th August 2024 at Serial No.1
Procedural History
High Court Full Bench vide judgment dated 18 January 1995 allowed writ petitions and struck down Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5480 of 1995 by order dated 6 August 1998 held that essentials of Article 31-A were overlooked, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to High Court for reconsideration. On remand, Full Bench of High Court vide impugned judgment and final order partly allowed the writ petitions and issued directions regarding mutation entries. State of Haryana filed Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 before Supreme Court. Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 7 April 2022 allowed the civil appeal, upheld the amendment as valid, and dismissed writ petitions. Review Petition (C) No. 526 of 2023 filed by Karnail Singh, Respondent No. 28, was allowed by Supreme Court vide order dated 16 May 2024, recalling the 2022 judgment and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing, to be listed on 7 August 2024. After review was allowed, the appeals were heard afresh.
Acts & Sections
- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: Section 2(g), Section 2(g)(6), Explanation to Section 2(g)
- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948: Section 18, Section 23-A
- Constitution of India: Article 31-A, Article 300A, Article 141
- Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992:
- Consolidation Rules: Rule 16(ii)
