New Delhi: In a significant ruling that brings clarity to long-standing land disputes in Haryana, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by the State of Haryana, effectively upholding a high court judgment that safeguards the rights of landowners over unutilised common village land, commonly known as ‘bachat’ land.
The decision reinforces the principle that land contributed by landowners for common purposes, but not ultimately utilised for such purposes, must revert to their original owners, affirming a legal position consistently held for decades.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, in a 51-page judgment, affirmed the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in favour of the landowners-proprietors, saying that unless unutilised/bachat land is specifically reserved for common purposes and their possession is handed over to the Panchayat, it continues to belong to the owner.
In doing so, it overruled its own 2022 decision in the case. The ruling came on a review petition filed by one of the land owners against the 2022 judgement, which held otherwise.
Background to the dispute
The case arose from challenges to 1992 amendments to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The amendment sought to expand the definition of “shamilat deh” (common village land) to include lands contributed by proprietors for common purposes under consolidation but not specifically utilised.
Aggrieved by this, the landowners-respondents, who had contributed a share of their holdings to form ‘shamilat deh’ for common village purposes, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. They argued that the amendment arbitrarily expanded the definition of ‘shamilat deh’ to include their land, which they claimed was neither reserved nor used for common purposes, and remained under their cultivation.
The High Court had initially struck down the amendments in 1995, a decision which was later remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Article 31-A (compensation at market value if the state acquires land under personal cultivation) of the Constitution. The High Court subsequently partly allowed the writ petitions, leading to the State of Haryana’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
A three-judge bench of set aside its own April 2022 ruling, which had earlier directed return of such lands to gram panchayats. The court concluded that the 2022 judgment erred in ignoring constitutional principles and binding precedent.
“We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that no error could be noticed in the impugned judgment and final order of the full bench of the High Court… lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest with the Gram Panchayat or the state,” the bench held.
Reliance on constitution bench precedent
Tracing the legal foundation to Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (1967), a five-judge Constitution Bench ruling, Court highlighted the distinction between state acquisition of land and mere modification of private rights. The judgment clarified that unless possession was transferred under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act, management and control would not vest with the panchayat.
Referring to the judgement in Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, CJI Gavai wrote: “All these decisions had held that the land which remains unutilised after utilising the land for the common purposes so provided under the consolidation scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat.”
The core legal battle
Central to the arguments was the interpretation of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, particularly its second proviso, which mandates compensation at market value if the state acquires land under personal cultivation within ceiling limits.
The state argued that the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 was merely clarificatory and did not divest proprietors of ownership rights, as their rights had already been extinguished under the Consolidation Act of 1948 upon finalisation of consolidation proceedings. They contended that all lands reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, vested with the state or gram panchayat.
Conversely, the landowners maintained that the unutilised land did not fall under ‘shamilat deh’ and should revert to them. They asserted that taking such land without compensation amounted to compulsory acquisition, violating Article 31-A. Counsel for the landowners-respondents submitted, “The management and control of the bachat land would also not vest with the gram panchayat under the provisions of Sections 18 and 23-A of the Consolidation Act of 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the Concomitant Consolidation Rules.”
They also highlighted that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right, and that the state cannot acquire land where it is the beneficiary for revenue generation without compensation.
Stare decisis and consistency in law
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of stare decisis, the doctrine that previous judicial interpretations should not be changed unless manifestly erroneous or unjust. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in more than 100 judgments, consistently held that bachat land reverted to proprietors.
“The doctrine of stare decisis lays importance on stability and predictability in the legal system and mandates that a view consistently upheld by courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous,” the court observed.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)