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.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI.

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-St