The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Haryana, affirming a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held that surplus land contributed by proprietors for common village purposes during consolidation, but not actually earmarked or used for such purposes, must revert to the original landowners.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, held that lands not specifically reserved for common use in a consolidation scheme, commonly known as ‘bachat’ land, do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. The court ruled that vesting such land in the State without compensation would amount to compulsory acquisition and violate the constitutional protection of property rights. The decision reinforces the principle that land taken from individuals for a specific public purpose cannot be retained by the state if left unutilised.
Background of the Litigation
The legal battle originated from a challenge to the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, which amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The amendment inserted sub-clause (6) into Section 2(g), expanding the definition of “shamilat deh” (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes during consolidation under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. An explanation further clarified that lands recorded as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” would be considered ‘shamilat deh’.
Aggrieved landowners, who had contributed portions of their holdings to a common pool during consolidation, challenged the amendment before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Full Bench of the High Court initially struck down the amendment in 1995. The State of Haryana appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 1998 remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration in light of Article 31-A of the Constitution.
Following remand, the High Court’s Full Bench, in the now-impugned judgment, partly allowed the landowners’ writ petitions. It held that while land actually reserved and utilised for common purposes would vest in the Gram Panchayat, any unutilised surplus or ‘bachat’ land would continue to be owned by the proprietors. The State of Haryana then filed the present appeal against this decision.
Submissions of the Parties
For the State of Haryana: Senior Counsel Shri Vinay Navare, appearing for the appellant-State, argued that the High Court’s judgment was “self-contradictory.” He contended that once land is contributed on a pro-rata basis during consolidation, it falls within the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ and vests completely in the Gram Panchayat, regardless of whether it is utilised. The State argued that the 1992 Act was merely “clarificatory” and did not divest proprietors of any rights, as their ownership was already extinguished upon finalisation of the consolidation scheme. It was submitted that returning ‘bachat’ land would cause fragmentation and reverse the objectives of the 1948 Consolidation Act.
For the Respondent Landowners: Senior Counsels Shri Manoj Swarup, Shri Narender Hooda, and Shri Rameshwar Singh Malik argued that the 1992 amendment arbitrarily expanded the definition of ‘shamilat deh’, amounting to compulsory acquisition of their private property without compensation, thus violating Article 31-A of the Constitution. They contended that ‘bachat’ land, which was never reserved or used for any common purpose, should rightfully be revested with the proprietors. They further argued that depriving citizens of their property must conform to constitutional requirements of public purpose and compensation, even if the right to property is no longer a fundamental right. Relying on decades of settled law, they urged the court to apply the doctrine of stare decisis to protect their long-settled rights.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of three pivotal Constitution Bench judgments that have shaped the law on this issue: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, and Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab.
The bench found the judgment in Bhagat Ram to be most relevant. In that case, the court had drawn a clear distinction between land reserved for “common purposes” (like paths, cremation grounds, etc.) and land reserved to generate “income for the Panchayat.” The Bhagat Ram judgment had held that reserving land for the Panchayat’s income amounted to an “acquisition by the State,” as the Panchayat is considered ‘State’ under Article 12. Such an acquisition, if made from a person holding land within the ceiling limit, would be unconstitutional without payment of market-value compensation under the second proviso to Article 31-A.
The Supreme Court quoted the Bhagat Ram decision, stating: “The income derived by the Panchayat is in no way different from its any other income…The income is the income of the Panchayat and it would defeat the whole object of the second proviso if we were to give any other construction.”
The bench also heavily relied on the finding in Bhagat Ram that under the Consolidation Act of 1948, the rights of the landowners are not modified or extinguished until possession of the allotted holdings has actually been transferred.
Agreeing with the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court observed:
“The lands which, however, might have been contributed by the proprietors on pro-rata basis, but have not been reserved or earmarked for common purposes in a scheme, known as Bachat land, it is equally true, would not vest either with the State or the Gram Panchayat and instead continue to be owned by the proprietors of the village in the same proportion in which they contribute the land owned by them.”
The court concluded that if such unutilised ‘bachat’ land were to vest in the Gram Panchayat, “the same would be nothing but compulsory acquisition within the ceiling limit of an individual without payment of compensation and would offend second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.”
The bench also upheld the High Court’s application of the doctrine of stare decisis, noting that the principle that ‘bachat’ land reverts to proprietors had been consistently applied in over 100 judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court emphasised the importance of stability and predictability in law, stating that a long-held view should not be disturbed unless it is manifestly wrong or unjust.
Decision
Finding no legal error in the High Court’s detailed judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal. The court concluded, “In the result we find no merit in the appeal of the State. The same is accordingly dismissed.” The decision settles a long-standing dispute and provides clarity on the ownership rights of proprietors over unutilised lands contributed during consolidation proceedings.
