1. Dispute over whether unutilized land reserved for common purposes under consolidation laws vests in the Gram Panchayat or reverts to original proprietors under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1698
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
The State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Decided On : 16-09-2025
Important Points
The amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands Act was unconstitutional as it violated proprietary rights without compensating landowners, affirming prior jurisprudence that unutilized land ('bachat') does not vest with the State or Gram Panchayat.
Subject
Property Law - Land Rights
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.31(a), Art.300(a), Art.19(1)(f), Art.31(2), Art.14, Art.21
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT: S.23, 18, S.24, S.21
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION RULES: R.16(ii)
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT: S.2
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT: S.23, 18, S.24, S.21
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION RULES: R.16(ii)
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT: S.2
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 31-A and 300-A - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 - Amendment challenged - High Court declared amendment unconstitutional, ruling that unutilized ‘bachat’ lands do not vest with the Gram Panchayat - Appeals by the State dismissed as the amendments contravened property rights without compensation, deemed unconstitutional per Article 31-A, affirming that proprietary rights are not solely extinguished by the amendment. (Paras 1, 63)
(B) Consolidation of Holdings - Interpretation of rights - The court recognized longstanding jurisprudence that lands not utilized for common purposes or reserved as such do not vest in the state. Effective management remains with the proprietors where their rights were unchanged. (Paras 12, 38, 63)
(C) Doctrine of Stare Decisis - The court adhered to the doctrine, confirming that established legal principles must be followed unless remarkably erroneous and clarifying the necessity of consistent application in legal judgments for stability in property rights. (Paras 58, 63)
(B) Consolidation of Holdings - Interpretation of rights - The court recognized longstanding jurisprudence that lands not utilized for common purposes or reserved as such do not vest in the state. Effective management remains with the proprietors where their rights were unchanged. (Paras 12, 38, 63)
(C) Doctrine of Stare Decisis - The court adhered to the doctrine, confirming that established legal principles must be followed unless remarkably erroneous and clarifying the necessity of consistent application in legal judgments for stability in property rights. (Paras 58, 63)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Shruti Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Lodhi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Verma, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Tarjit Singh Chhikara, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Sapra, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Samantray, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kar, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mrs. Anubha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Shruti Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Lodhi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Verma, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Tarjit Singh Chhikara, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Sapra, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Samantray, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kar, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mrs. Anubha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. State contends unutilized land vests in Gram Panchayats; landowners argue such land is not shamilat deh and its appropriation without compensation violates constitutional protections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Analysis of Constitution Bench precedents indicates that land not earmarked for specific common purposes (bachat land) does not vest in the State or Gram Panchayat. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
4. Unutilized surplus land (bachat land) not earmarked for specific common purposes under a consolidation scheme does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and reverts to proprietors. (Para 52 , 53 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld regarding the non-vesting of unutilized bachat land in the Gram Panchayat or State. (Para 63 )
6. What is the legal status of bachat land in consolidation schemes?
Bachat land, which is land contributed on a pro-rata basis but not reserved or earmarked for specific common purposes in a scheme, does not vest in the State or Gram Panchayat and continues to be owned by the proprietors. (Para 52 , 53 )
7. When does the reservation of land for a Gram Panchayat constitute acquisition by the State under Article 31-A?
Reservation for common purposes like paths or schools is generally not acquisition by the State. However, reserving land specifically to generate income for the Panchayat is considered acquisition by the State, requiring compensation. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
8. At what point does management and control of common land vest in the Gram Panchayat under the Consolidation Act of 1948?
Management and control vest in the Panchayat only after possession has changed under Section 24; until then, the rights of the holders are not modified or extinguished. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 )
9. How does the doctrine of stare decisis apply to consistent High Court interpretations of land vesting?
A legal view consistently upheld by courts over a long period should not be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous, unreasonable, or causes public hardship. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| I. | BACKGROUND |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| III. | CONSIDERATION |
| (a) | Consideration of the Constitution Bench Judgments of this Court in Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram |
| (b) | Consideration of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in impugned judgment and final order referring its earlier judgment in Gurjant Singh and several other judgments |
| (c) | Applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis to the facts of the present case. |
| IV. | CONCLUSIONS |
I. BACKGROUND
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and final order passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’.] in Civil Writ Petition No. 5877 of 1992 wherein the High Court partly allowed the writ petition preferred by the proprietors/landowners, (Respondents herein), challenging the amendments carried out in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 19612[Hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’.], as inserted by the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, published on 11th February 1992 after the assent of the President of India.
2. The facts which give rise to the present proceedings are as follows:
2.1 The State of Haryana, by way of Government Gazette Notification dated 11th February 1992 inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2 (g) of the 1961 Act along with an Explanation to the said sub-clause, which received the assent of the President on 14th January 1992. 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 The respondent-landowners along with several other similarly-situated landowners who held land in various villages and had contributed a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land called ‘shamilat deh’, which was meant exclusively for the common purposes of the village inhabitants, filed Writ Petitions before the High Court being aggrieved by the aforementioned amendment.
2.3 When the batch of Writ Petitions first came up before the High Court, upon considering the important questions of law involved in the matter, which were likely to arise in a large number of cases and affect a huge chunk of land, the Division Bench which was seized of the matter vide order dated 1st 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. Thereafter, a Full Bench of the High Court heard the matter at length and vide judgment dated 18th January 1995, reported as Jai Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 5877 of 1992 ., allowed the writ petitions and struck down the amendments carried out by way of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992.
2.4 The State of Haryana4[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant-State’.], Appellant herein, challenged the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court before this Court vide Civil Appeal No. 5480 of 1995 titled as State of Haryana v. Jai Singh , 1998 SCC OnLine SC 8. This Court by order dated 6th August, 1998 held that certain essentials of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India had been overlooked and accordingly, the civil appeal came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the issues in light of Article 31-A of the
