Does the 1992 Amendment Validly Vest Both Earmarked and Unutilized Consolidation Lands in Gram Panchayats, or Do “Bachat Lands” Remain Proprietors’ Property?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that lands reserved under Section 18 of the Consolidation Act, whether actually utilized or not, vest absolutely in the Gram Panchayat once possession vests under Section 24.
• Reaffirms that unearmarked “bachat lands” (surplus lands not assigned to any common purpose) remain with the original proprietors in their pro rata shares.
• Confirms that management and extinguishment of proprietary rights under Section 23-A occur only upon actual change of possession, not merely record-entry.
• Interprets the second proviso to Article 31-A as protecting personal-cultivation lands from acquisition without compensation, thus covering bachat lands.
• Emphasises the binding force of over 100 consistent High Court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Constitution Bench Precedents
   • Ranjit Singh (pre-Seventeenth Amendment) held moot for post-1964 law.
   • Ajit Singh analysed Article 31-A(1)(a) and its proviso, distinguishing acquisition for common purposes from State acquisition.
   • Bhagat Ram held reservations for Panchayat income constitute acquisition requiring compensation under the second proviso.
2. Sections 23-A & 24, Consolidation Act, 1948
   • Section 23-A vests management and control of scheme-lands in Panchayat only when scheme “comes into force.”
   • Section 24 requires actual possession change before rights stand modified or extinguished.
3. Distinction Between Reserved and Bachat Lands
   • Lands “reserved or assigned” under a scheme (Section 18(c)) become Panchayat property, regardless of utilisation.
   • Surplus bachat lands, never earmarked, remain proprietor-owned and must be redistributed in pro rata shares.
4. Doctrine of Stare Decisis
   • Over 100 High Court decisions unanimously held bachat lands belong to proprietors; Supreme Court applied stare decisis to uphold that view.
5. Conclusion
   • Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 is constitutionally valid; only reserved commons vest in Panchayats; unutilized bachat lands continue as private property.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (State of Haryana)

• Sub-clause (6) is merely clarificatory of existing vesting under the 1961 Act and Consolidation Act.
• All pro rata consolidation lands—including those not yet used—vest in the State/Panchayat, obviating any need to prove earmarking or use.
• High Court’s cancellation of mutations was self-contradictory given its recognition of automatic vesting.
• Bhagat Ram’s restraint on returning bachat lands to proprietors (to avoid scheme disruption) supports vesting in Panchayat.

Respondent (Landowners)

• Bachat lands were never reserved or utilised for common purposes and remained under private cultivation; vested rights cannot be extinguished without acquisition and compensation under Article 31-A.
• Management and control vest only on possession change under Section 24, a precondition not met for bachat lands.
• Long-settled possession and bona fide transactions on bachat lands deserve protection; reacquisition would be manifestly unjust.

Factual Background

In 1992, Haryana amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by inserting sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) with an Explanation, defining “shamilat deh” to include lands reserved under Section 18 of the East Punjab Consolidation Act, 1948 and those recorded as “Jumla Malkan….” Proprietors of unutilized “bachat lands” challenged their inclusion in writ proceedings; a Full Bench struck down that part of the amendment. The State’s 1998 appeal was remanded; after a 2024 review recall and re-hearing, the Supreme Court upheld that only lands earmarked under a scheme vest in Panchayats, while bachat lands remain with proprietors.

Statutory Analysis

• 1961 Act, Section 2(g)(6) & Explanation
  Broadens “shamilat deh” to include consolidation-reserved lands and those recorded as communal in the revenue entries.
• Consolidation Act, 1948
  • Section 18(c): empowers reservation of lands for common purposes on pro rata basis.
  • Section 23-A: vests management and control of reserved lands in Panchayat once scheme is in force.
  • Section 24: postpones modification/extinguishment of rights until actual possession change.
• Consolidation Rules, Rule 16(ii)
  Confirms vesting of proprietary title in common-purpose lands and Panchayat management for village benefit.
• Constitution, Article 31-A
  Second proviso protects personal-cultivation lands within ceiling limits from acquisition without market-value compensation.

Procedural Innovations

• Review Petition used to recall the 2022 judgment, restore appeal on file and secure a peremptory listing for fresh merits hearing.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed