Summary
Rehearing the State of Haryana's appeal after recalling its 2022 judgment on review, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court Full Bench's view that 'bachat' land, contributed pro rata by proprietors during consolidation but not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose in the scheme, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State under the amended definition of 'shamilat deh' and continues to belong to the proprietors in proportion to their contribution. Relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram and on stare decisis, it dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether land contributed by proprietors on a pro-rata basis during consolidation, but not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose in the scheme (bachat land), vests in the Gram Panchayat or State by virtue of Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as inserted by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992.
- Whether vesting such land in the State or Panchayat would amount to acquisition by the State within the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution, requiring market-value compensation.
- Whether the High Court rightly applied the doctrine of stare decisis to a view consistently taken in a large number of its judgments.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(g)(6) and Explanation, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992)The inserted clause brings within 'shamilat deh' lands reserved for common purposes under Section 18 of the Consolidation Act whose management vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A. The Court upheld the High Court's reading that it covers land reserved or assigned for common purposes, but not bachat land never earmarked for any purpose. (¶¶ 2.1, 52, 53)
- Article 31-A(1), second proviso, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram, acquisition by the State is distinguished from modification of rights by asking who benefits. Pooling land for common village purposes is modification, but taking land for the Panchayat's income, or vesting unreserved surplus land in the State or Panchayat, is acquisition within personal cultivation and ceiling limits without compensation and offends the proviso. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 52)
- Sections 18, 23-A and 24, East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948As held in Bhagat Ram, management and control of land reserved for common purposes vests in the Panchayat under Section 23-A only when the scheme comes into force on persons entering possession of their allotted holdings under Section 24; until then the holders' rights are not modified or extinguished. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52)
- Rule 16(ii), Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949Noticed through Ajit Singh: title in land reserved from the common pool remains with the proprietary body, with the Panchayat managing it on their behalf for common needs, which is why such reservation is not acquisition by the State. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39)
Held
- Ranjit Singh does not govern the present question because it was decided on Article 31-A as it stood before the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 and did not consider the second proviso. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Under Ajit Singh, the words 'acquisition by the State' in the second proviso to Article 31-A are not technical; if the State in substance acquires all rights in land for its own purposes, it is acquisition even if title remains with the owner. Pooling a fraction of each proprietor's land for common village purposes, where title remains with the proprietary body and the proprietors share the benefit, is only modification of rights and not acquisition. (¶¶ 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- Under Bhagat Ram, reserving land for the income of the Panchayat, which is 'State' under Article 12, is acquisition by the State hit by the second proviso; and rights of holders are not modified or extinguished, nor does management vest in the Panchayat, until possession changes under the scheme. (¶¶ 47, 48, 50, 51)
- There is no error in the Full Bench's conclusion that lands not earmarked for any specific purpose in the consolidation scheme (bachat land) do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State, and remain with the proprietors in proportion to their contribution; vesting them in the State would amount to acquisition within the ceiling limit without compensation. (¶¶ 52, 53, 56)
- In its earlier appeal against Gurjant Singh, the State objected only to the time-bound direction for repartition and did not press its challenge to redistribution of bachat land among the proprietors. (¶¶ 54, 57)
- Stare decisis requires a view consistently followed over a long period to be maintained unless manifestly wrong, unjust or productive of public hardship; the Full Bench rightly followed the view applied in more than 100 judgments of the High Court. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 62)
Result
Appeal of the State of Haryana dismissed; the Full Bench judgment of the High Court upheld. No order as to costs.