Summary
The 2022 judgment allowing Haryana’s common-land appeal was recalled for errors apparent in its treatment of binding Constitution Bench authority and the High Court’s reasoning. It had conflated land earmarked for common purposes but not yet used with surplus Bachat land never so earmarked. Non-consideration of the High Court’s precedent and stare decisis reasoning also warranted review. The civil appeal was restored for rehearing, not finally decided on merits.
Issues
- Whether failure to apply Bhagat Ram disclosed an apparent reviewable error.
- Whether earmarked common-purpose land and unearmarked Bachat land had been improperly conflated.
- Whether omission of the High Court’s precedent and stare decisis reasoning warranted recall.
- What disposition followed for the State’s underlying appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(g)(6) and Explanation, inserted in 1992, Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961The reviewed appeal concerned inclusion of consolidation lands in shamilat deh. Review identified failure to address the distinction between earmarked common-purpose lands and unearmarked surplus; final appeal merits were reserved for rehearing. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.4, 17, 18, 19, 50, 51, 65, 68, 69)
- Sections 18(c), 23-A and 24; Consolidation Rules, 1949, Rule 16(ii), East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948Bhagat Ram required the relevant possession changes under Section 24 before Section 23-A management/control vesting. Treating assignment under Section 18(c) alone as completing vesting contradicted that binding authority. (¶¶ 27, 35, 36, 37, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58)
- Article 31A(1), second proviso, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional authorities distinguish common-benefit modification of rights from acquisition for the State/Panchayat’s own benefit, with market-value protection for qualifying personally cultivated land within ceiling limits. Their effect required proper consideration. (¶¶ 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51)
Held
- Review is confined to manifest material error undermining the judgment or causing miscarriage of justice; it is not a rehearing, disguised appeal or opportunity to advance another possible view. The errors identified met that limited standard. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 58, 65, 67)
- Jai Singh II distinguished land specifically reserved or earmarked in the consolidation scheme for common purposes, whether currently used or not, from pro-rata contributions left as unearmarked Bachat/surplus. The State’s grievance concerned the latter. The earlier judgment’s treatment failed to address this distinction and its constitutional foundation. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 50, 51, 52, 65)
- The binding Constitution Bench ruling in Bhagat Ram required change of possession under Section 24 before management/control vested under Section 23-A and holders’ rights were modified or extinguished. The judgment under review treated Section 18(c) assignment alone as completing vesting, without meaningfully considering that ratio. A two-judge bench could not ignore the controlling five-judge decision; that alone supported recall. (¶¶ 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58)
- Ajit Singh distinguished common-benefit adjustments, where the proprietary body retained title, from acquisition benefiting the State. Bhagat Ram separately addressed land reserved to provide Panchayat income under Article 31A’s second proviso. These authorities could not be displaced by reliance on Ranjit Singh, which had not adjudicated the later amendment’s effect through arguments on that issue. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- The earlier judgment also failed to answer the Full Bench’s reasons based on Gurjant Singh and the line of Bachat-land authorities. The Court did not determine the contested merger point in review, but found that rejection of the authorities without addressing their binding foundation was an apparent error. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65)
- Omission of the Full Bench’s alternative stare decisis reasoning, based on more than one hundred decisions, was a further apparent error. The review bench expressly did not finally decide whether that doctrine applied on the merits; the error was non-consideration of the reasoning. (¶¶ 66, 67)
- Review was allowed, the 7 April 2022 judgment recalled and Civil Appeal 6990/2014 restored. It was directed to be listed peremptorily as the first matter on 7 August 2024. The restored appeal was not dismissed or finally adjudicated in this review judgment. (¶¶ 68, 69)
Result
Review allowed; judgment dated 7 April 2022 recalled. Civil Appeal 6990/2014 restored for peremptory hearing at serial 1 on 7 August 2024; underlying appeal merits remain for rehearing.