SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Subegh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since all the writ petitions relate to common questions of law, therefore, the same are being disposed of through a common order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The writ petitioners belong to the States of Haryana as well as Punjab.
They are aggrieved by the Executive Instructions issued by the respective State Governments for the purpose of purported implementation of the Judgment dated 07.04.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in case titled as 'State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC) 1718'. Since, the States of Haryana and Punjab have issued their respective set of instructions, thus, it will be useful to reproduce them separately.
State of Haryana:-
3. The State of Haryana firstly issued instructions dated 21.06.2022, relevant part whereof reads as follows:-
'All the Deputy Commissioners in the State
Memo No DLR-7202 | Chandigarh. Dated-21-06-2022 |
Subject: Implementation of the Apex Court judgment dated 07.04.2022 pertaining to vesting of Shamlat Deh and Jumla Mushtarka Malkan in the Panchayat Deh or Municipal Bodies concerned.
On the subject cited above, it is brought to your kind notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appea
Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others vs. State of UP (1982) 1 SCC 39
Jai Singh II and Suraj Bhan & ors versus State of Haryana & another. 2017(2) RCR(Civ) 934 P&II (FB)
Moti Ram vs. Suraj Bhan and others (AIR 1960 SC 655)
Parkash and Others vs. Phulavati and others (2016 (2) SCC 36)
Shyam Sunder and Ors. vs. Ram Kumar
'State of Haryana vs. Jai Singh and Others
Suraj Bhan vs. State of Haryana (2017) 2 PLR 605
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011 (6) SCC 739
Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs.Government of Andhra Pradesh and other
The classification of lands as shamlat patti is upheld; civil courts lack jurisdiction over ownership disputes regarding shamlat deh lands under the Act.
The court reaffirmed that lands reserved for common purposes should not revert to proprietors unless formally reallocated, emphasizing established precedents in land management law.
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 ('bacha....
The Gram Panchayat is entitled to change the user of land under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and permitted the user of land by PWD (B&R) department for 'plantation purposes'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of the Collector under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to decide disputes related to the ownership of land, and ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.