State of Haryana Through Secretary To Government of Haryana vs Jai Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 339

HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
State of Haryana Through Secretary To Government of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Pradeep Kant, Alok Grover, Sr. AAG Mr. Anil Gover, AAG B.K. Satija, AAG Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG Rajesh K. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Gaurav Yadava, Veena Bansal, Gagan Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Vidisha Swarup, Rashav Bhatia, Devadatt Kamat, Mr. Javedur Rahman, Siddhant Singh, Anubha Agrawal, Gurinder Singh Gill, P.P. Nayak, Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Aashna Gill, Pratap Singh Gill, Bhupinder, Suman Lohchab, Ajay Pal, Himanshu Sharma, Jagdish Manchanda, Aditi Sharma, Seeta Ram Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Vinay Kumar, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Madhu Kosla, Amit Kumar Chawla, Manju Jetley, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, A. Venayagam Balan, Simranjeet, Shish Pal Laler, S. D. Sharma, Hitesh Kumar, Ravi Panwar, Anil Kumar, Umang Tripathi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, R. C. Kaushik, Monika Gusain, Umang Shankar, Ravindra Bana, Rajesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, P.N. Puri, Rajiv Mangla, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Rakesh Dahiya, Ankur Mittal, Robin Khokhar, Daya Krishan Sharma, Advocates

Table of Content
1. amendments to the punjab village common lands act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6)
2. previous court decisions on the act. (Para 3 , 5)
3. legal implications of land ownership and management. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 40)
4. definitions and ownership of common lands. (Para 43 , 49 , 60 , 66)
5. final observations on land re-distribution and ownership. (Para 64 , 65 , 67 , 70 , 71)

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in the present appeals is the amendments in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961¹[For short, the ‘1961 Act’], as inserted by Haryana Act No. 9/1992²[Amending Act], published on 11.2.1992 after the assent of the President of India.

“In view of the observations cited above, Sections 2(g) (4) and 2(g)(6) of the Act of 1961 describes the land reserved for common purposes under Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 by application or pro rata cut to the holdings of the land owners within their ceiling limits as Shamlat Deh under the Act of 1961 and since these lands have been vested in the Panchayat the action is in violation of Article 31-A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 339

HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIANState of Haryana Through Secretary To Government of Haryana – AppellantVersusJai Singh – Respondent

HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
State of Haryana Through Secretary To Government of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh – Respondent