The Supreme Court has ruled that land contributed by villagers for common purposes but which remains unutilised (“bachat land”) must be returned to the original proprietors, unless two specific conditions are met: the land must have been explicitly reserved for a common purpose in the relevant consolidation scheme, and possession must have been handed over to the Gram Panchayat. The Court dismissed an appeal by the State of Haryana, affirming the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in favor of the landowners.
The case arose under the framework of land consolidation in East Punjab, during which villagers were required to contribute portions of their private holdings for public or common purposes such as roads, schools, pastures (“common uses”). When some of the contributed land is actually used for those purposes, and a portion of it remains unused, the question that arose was what legal ownership attaches to the unutilised portion.
The Full Bench had ruled that unless the unutilised portion is (a) specifically earmarked for common purpose in the consolidation scheme, and (b) its possession is delivered to the Panchayat, that portion does not vest in the Panchayat or any public authority, but continues to be the property of those who originally contributed it, in the shares in which they contributed. The Supreme Court agreed with this, relying on earlier precedent, in particular a 1967 Constitution Bench decision (Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.), which had laid down the same legal principle.
In its judgment, a Bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, along with Justices P. K. Mishra and K. V. Viswanathan, held that the earlier precedent is binding, and that over a hundred judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court have followed this position. The Court observed that allowing the State to appropriate unutilised contributed land without satisfying the conditions would upset settled law, fairness, and legal certainty.
The Court examined the statutory provisions in question: the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In 1992, an amendment in Haryana broadened the definition of “shamilat deh” to include land contributed for common purposes in consolidation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that this inclusion by itself does not abolish the earlier requirement that the unused portion be distinctly reserved and possession handed over, for it to vest with the Gram Panchayat.
The Court emphasized that the two conditions are jurisdictional in nature: without express reservation in the consolidation scheme and without physical transfer of possession, the rights of proprietors remain intact. It noted that in the case before it, neither condition was fulfilled in respect of the disputed land.
The decision also addressed the State’s earlier winning position in 2022, which was reversed when the Supreme Court recalled its earlier order upon review and re-heard the appeal. In its final judgment, the Court reaffirmed the High Court’s view, and thus dismissed the appeal of the State.
The Court held that the principle of stare decisis demands that consistent legal position taken over many cases be respected, unless manifestly erroneous or unjust. Since over a hundred High Court judgments had followed the rule laid in Bhagat Ram, the Court found no basis to disturb it.
In summary, the Supreme Court has clarified that “bachat land” or land contributed for common use but unutilised must be returned to contributors unless and until it is formally reserved and possession is given over to the public authority.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.