1. Review petition concerning the vesting of unutilized common lands (Bachat lands) under the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and the Consolidation Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 475
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Karnail Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No. 526 OF 2023 In Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Decided On : 16-05-2024
Important Points
The court reaffirmed that lands reserved for common purposes should not revert to proprietors unless formally reallocated, emphasizing established precedents in land management law.
Subject
Land Law - Property Rights
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.12, Art.31(a)
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT: S.17, S.18, S.2, S.21, S.23, S.24
PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION RULES: R.16(ii)
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT: S.2
Village Common Lands Regulation Act: S.2(g)(6)
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT: S.17, S.18, S.2, S.21, S.23, S.24
PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION RULES: R.16(ii)
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT: S.2
Village Common Lands Regulation Act: S.2(g)(6)
Headnote
(A) Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 2(g)(6) - Constitution of India - Article 31-A - Review of earlier judgment relating to land consolidation and common lands - The Court upheld the High Court's view that unutilized ‘Bachat’ lands should remain vested with proprietors and stressed that until possession was altered, management would not transfer to local bodies. (Paras 1, 3, 26, 54)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Grounds - Clearly established principles dictate that review is applicable only to apparent errors or new evidence and not to reargue settled matters, as emphasized in previous rulings. (Paras 12, 13, 20)
Facts of the case:
The review petition challenges the Supreme Court's earlier decision on land parcels reserved for common purposes, with arguments centered on management transitions and proprietors' rights in light of constitutional protections against potential land loss without compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court acknowledged flaws in the earlier decision regarding conversion of land ownership from private to government use due to a lack of consideration of established precedents.
Issues: The inquiry primarily pertained to the misinterpretation of land management rights under previous legal frameworks and the nuances of particular high court decisions involving proprietary interests in land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced the necessity of adherence to established precedents in land law, stressing that prior judgments laid out critical distinctions regarding land use and ownership which were overlooked in the initial ruling.
Result: Review petition allowed; previous judgement recalled, restoring the appeal for further consideration.
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Grounds - Clearly established principles dictate that review is applicable only to apparent errors or new evidence and not to reargue settled matters, as emphasized in previous rulings. (Paras 12, 13, 20)
Facts of the case:
The review petition challenges the Supreme Court's earlier decision on land parcels reserved for common purposes, with arguments centered on management transitions and proprietors' rights in light of constitutional protections against potential land loss without compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court acknowledged flaws in the earlier decision regarding conversion of land ownership from private to government use due to a lack of consideration of established precedents.
Issues: The inquiry primarily pertained to the misinterpretation of land management rights under previous legal frameworks and the nuances of particular high court decisions involving proprietary interests in land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced the necessity of adherence to established precedents in land law, stressing that prior judgments laid out critical distinctions regarding land use and ownership which were overlooked in the initial ruling.
Result: Review petition allowed; previous judgement recalled, restoring the appeal for further consideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: : Mr. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Ms. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Harsh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Mr. Mayank Dhiaya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Priyanka C, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Rathore, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Lamba, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Rashi Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: : Mr. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Ms. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Harsh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Mr. Mayank Dhiaya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Priyanka C, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Rathore, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Lamba, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Rashi Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges contradiction of Constitution Bench precedents; Respondent argues review is limited to patent errors and cannot be used to re-argue decided questions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. The court found the judgment ignored a Constitution Bench ruling on vesting and failed to address the doctrine of stare decisis and High Court reasoning. (Para 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 )
4. Ignoring a Constitution Bench judgment or failing to address reasoning based on such precedent constitutes a material error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 57 , 58 , 65 , 67 )
5. Review petition allowed, judgment dated 7th April 2022 recalled, and the original appeal restored for hearing. (Para 68 , 69 )
6. What are the grounds for maintaining a review petition before the Court?
A review is maintainable upon the discovery of new and important evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. When does the management and control of lands reserved for common purposes vest in the Gram Panchayat under the Consolidation Act?
Management and control do not vest in the Panchayat, nor are the rights of holders modified or extinguished, until possession has changed under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act. (Para 48 , 49 , 52 , 55 )
8. Does ignoring a Constitution Bench judgment constitute a ground for review?
Yes, ignoring the law laid down by a Constitution Bench and taking a view totally contrary to it amounts to a material error manifest on the face of the order, which undermines its soundness. (Para 57 , 58 )
9. Is the failure to consider the doctrine of stare decisis regarding a consistent line of High Court decisions a reviewable error?
Yes, the non-consideration of reasoning regarding the applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis, especially when based on a large number of consistent decisions, is an error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 66 , 67 )
I. | FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
II. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
III. | CONSIDERATION ON THE SCOPE OF REVIEW JURISDICTION |
IV. | CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN JAI SINGH II |
V. | CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT IN RANJIT SINGH, AJIT SINGH AND BHAGAT RAM |
VI. | CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN JAI SINGH II REFERRING ITS EARLIER JUDGMENT IN GURJANT SINGH AND SEVERAL OTHER JUDGMENTS |
VII. | CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN JAI SINGH II WITH REGARD TO DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS |
VIII. | CONCLUSION |
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The present review petition has been filed by the original respondent No.28 in the Appeal, seeking review of the judgment of this Court passed on 7th April 2022, thereby allowing the Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 filed by the State of Haryana against the judgement and order passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “Full Bench of the High Court”) in Civil Writ Petition No. 5877 of 1992 dated 13th March 2003
2. The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present review petition are thus:
2.1 The State of Haryana, by way of Government Gazette Notification dated 11th February 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992”) inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2 (g) of the Haryana1[ For the word “Punjab” deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. 01.11.1966 vide Haryana Act No.15 of 2021, the Haryana Short Titles Amendment Act 2021 dated 05.04.2021] Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”) along with an explanation to the said sub-clause which received the assent of the President on 14th January 1992. The sub-clause (6) to Section 2 (g) of the 1961 Act reads thus:
“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –
xxx xxx xxx
(g) “shamilat deh” includes-
xxx xxx xxx
(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.”
2.2 Being aggrieved by the said amendment, the present review petitioner along with similarly situated landowners, holding land in villages, who contribute a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land called ‘shamilat deh’, meant exclusively for the common purposes of the village inhabitants filed a batch of Writ Petitions before the High Court. Considering the matter to be involving important questions of law, likely to arise in a large number of cases and involving a large chunk of land; the Hon’ble Division Bench, then seized of the matter vide Orders dated 01st June, 1993 directed the papers of the case to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench of the High Court for determination of the vires of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 and the explanation thereof. The Full Bench of the High Court vide judgement dated 18th January 1995 allowed the batch of Writ Petitions, wherein the judgement came to be recorded in CWP No. 5877 of 1992.
2.3 The State of Haryana challenged the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court before this Court vide Civil Appeal No. 5480 of 1995; wherein this Court held that certain essentials of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India were overlooked and remanded the matter back to the High Court for re-consideration of the issues in light of Article 31A of the Constitution of India.
2.4 Accordingly, the Full Bench of the High Court vide judgement and order dated 13th March 2003, partly allowed the petition in terms of the following:
“In view of the discussion made
