Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court three-judge Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on Tuesday (September 16) upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in favor of Haryana landowners, clarifying the legal status of “bachat land.” The Court held that unutilized land left over after earmarking portions for village common purposes under consolidation does not vest in the Panchayat unless expressly reserved and transferred for such use. Instead, the residual land must be redistributed among the original proprietors in proportion to their contributions, thereby affirming landowners’ entitlement over surplus parcels.

The appeal arose from amendments made by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, after Presidential assent on 14 January 1992 and notification on 11 February 1992. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh and Others v. State of Haryana (18 January 1995) struck down the amendment. In 1998, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration under Article 31-A. On remand, the Full Bench partly allowed writ petitions filed by proprietors, examined the validity of Section 2(g)(6), and issued directions concerning revenue entries.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Global Ayyappa Devotees’ Meet | Upholds Kerala High Court’s Order Permitting Event at Sabarimala

In 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the State and Panchayats’ appeals. On review, however, that judgment was recalled on 16 May 2024 and the appeal was restored. The matter was then heard afresh.

The central dispute concerned the ownership of bachat land—unutilized portions left after land earmarked for common purposes in consolidation schemes. The State argued that lands contributed pro-rata by proprietors during consolidation fell within “shamilat deh” under the 1992 amendment, vesting in the State/Gram Panchayat whether used or not. It contended that vesting was complete once the consolidation scheme attained finality and that the High Court’s judgment was contradictory.

Proprietors, on the other hand, maintained that land reserved only for common purposes passed to the Panchayat, but surplus bachat land reverted to them. They invoked Article 300-A, stressing that no person could be deprived of property except by valid law, and argued that reservation for Panchayat income was acquisition by the “State” under Article 12, attracting the second proviso to Article 31-A.

Evidence referred to included the Gazette notification introducing Section 2(g)(6), mutation entries passed by revenue authorities, and the consistent judicial record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court declaring that unutilized land remained with proprietors. Statutory provisions considered were Section 2(g)(6) of the 1961 Act, Section 18(c) of the 1948 Act, Rule 16(ii) of the 1949 Rules, the second proviso to Article 31-A, and Article 300-A.

It observed that “the title still vests in the proprietary body… the land is used for the common needs and benefits of the estate.” Consolidation schemes pooled fractions from proprietors for village amenities such as paths, drains, and playgrounds, but this did not amount to a transfer of ownership to the State.

Drawing on the Constitution Bench decision in Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, the Court distinguished between reservation for common amenities and reservation to generate income for the Panchayat. It stated, “acquisition for the common purposes such as phirnis, paths, etc., is not acquisition by the State within the second proviso to Article 31-A”, but when land was reserved solely for Panchayat income, “the beneficiary is the Panchayat which falls within the definition of the word ‘State’ under Article 12.” In such cases, reservation contrary to the constitutional safeguard had to be modified.

Turning to bachat land, the Court examined whether surplus areas not earmarked in the scheme vested in the Panchayat. It recorded that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had consistently held that unutilized land reverted to proprietors, noting: “the land which remains unutilized after utilizing the land for the common purposes so provided under the consolidation scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat.” This settled principle, applied in over a hundred judgments, was a proper application of the doctrine of stare decisis.

On the State’s contention that the High Court’s findings were contradictory, the Court disagreed. It observed that the High Court drew a clear line between land specifically reserved for common purposes, which could vest in the Panchayat, and unutilized bachat land, which did not.

Also Read: Delhi High Court | Women SSC Candidates Must Be Considered for Unfilled Male Vacancies | Section 12 Army Act Notifications Cannot Be Undermined by Vacancy Caps

The Court also addressed constitutional concerns. It recorded that proprietors’ rights under Article 300-A required valid legal authority for deprivation of property. Since the consolidation scheme did not reserve the surplus land, nor was possession handed over, such land could not be absorbed into “shamilat deh.”

Summing up, the Court stated, “We find no error in the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in applying the doctrine of stare decisis to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it followed the law which was consistently applied in more than 100 judgments.”

“In the result we find no merit in the appeal of the State. The same is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1122
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan