# Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 424
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/karnail-singh-v-state-of-haryana-ors-37796
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Judgment and order under review ignored the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab
& others which had a direct bearing on the issue in question and
took a view totally contrary thereto and held that the vesting in the
Panchayat is complete on mere assignment under Section 18(c)
of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It was also held that the unutilized land
was not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors and
the land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned
amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the
land so reserved was not put to common use and; once the land
has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted
to the proprietors for redistribution. Ignoring the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram and taking a contrary view,
if would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the
order. Also, non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full
Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II relying on the judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, if would also amount to
an error, apparent on the face of the record.
Headnotes
Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Subclause (6) to s.2(g) and its explanation, as inserted by Haryana
Act No.9 of 1992 - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - ss.18(c), 23-A, 24
- Judgment under review (JUR), ignoring the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State
of Punjab & others, took a view contrary thereto, if the same
would amount to a material error manifest on the face of the
order and needs to be recalled:
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
895
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Held: Though this Court in the JUR referred to the Constitution
Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh and Ajit Singh, there is not even
a whisper about the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram,
except in paragraph 11, though it had a direct bearing on the issue
in question - Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagat
Ram in unequivocal terms held that the management and control
does not vest in the Panchayat u/s.23-A of the Consolidation Act
till possession has changed u/s.24 of the said Act - It further held
that, the rights of the holders are not modified or extinguished
till persons have changed possession and entered into the
possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme -
The specific contention raised by the State that the requirements
as contemplated u/ss.23, 24 and 21(2) of the Consolidation Act
were already complete and as such, the acquisition had already
taken place before the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act, 1964, was rejected - All these steps are subsequent to the
assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act - In the light of these
findings of the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, the finding of
this Court in the JUR that the vesting in the Panchayat is complete
on mere assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act is totally
contrary to the findings recorded in the Constitution Bench judgment
in Bhagat Ram - It was also held in Bhagat Ram that since the
Panchayat would fall within the definition of the word "State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution, if the acquisition is for the purposes
of providing income to the Panchayat, it would defeat the whole
object of the second proviso and the Consolidation Officer could
easily defeat the object of the second proviso to Article 31-A by
reserving for the income of the Panchayat a major portion of the
land belonging to a person holding land within the ceiling limit -
Except the cursory reference in the JUR, this Court did not even
refer to the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Bhagat Ram - A judgment of the Constitution Bench would be
binding on the Benches of a lesser strength - A bench strength
of two Judges could not have ignored the law

## Text

_Characters 0–39,859 of 85,789. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39859 for what follows._

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 894 : 2024 INSC 424
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
Review Petition (Civil) No.526 of 2023
In
(Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014)
16 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Judgment and order under review ignored the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab
& others which had a direct bearing on the issue in question and
took a view totally contrary thereto and held that the vesting in the
Panchayat is complete on mere assignment under Section 18(c)
of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It was also held that the unutilized land
was not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors and
the land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned
amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the
land so reserved was not put to common use and; once the land
has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted
to the proprietors for redistribution. Ignoring the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram and taking a contrary view,
if would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the
order. Also, non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full
Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II relying on the judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, if would also amount to
an error, apparent on the face of the record.
Headnotes
Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Subclause (6) to s.2(g) and its explanation, as inserted by Haryana
Act No.9 of 1992 - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - ss.18(c), 23-A, 24
- Judgment under review (JUR), ignoring the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State
of Punjab & others, took a view contrary thereto, if the same
would amount to a material error manifest on the face of the
order and needs to be recalled:
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
895
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Held: Though this Court in the JUR referred to the Constitution
Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh and Ajit Singh, there is not even
a whisper about the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram,
except in paragraph 11, though it had a direct bearing on the issue
in question - Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagat
Ram in unequivocal terms held that the management and control
does not vest in the Panchayat u/s.23-A of the Consolidation Act
till possession has changed u/s.24 of the said Act - It further held
that, the rights of the holders are not modified or extinguished
till persons have changed possession and entered into the
possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme -
The specific contention raised by the State that the requirements
as contemplated u/ss.23, 24 and 21(2) of the Consolidation Act
were already complete and as such, the acquisition had already
taken place before the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act, 1964, was rejected - All these steps are subsequent to the
assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act - In the light of these
findings of the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, the finding of
this Court in the JUR that the vesting in the Panchayat is complete
on mere assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act is totally
contrary to the findings recorded in the Constitution Bench judgment
in Bhagat Ram - It was also held in Bhagat Ram that since the
Panchayat would fall within the definition of the word "State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution, if the acquisition is for the purposes
of providing income to the Panchayat, it would defeat the whole
object of the second proviso and the Consolidation Officer could
easily defeat the object of the second proviso to Article 31-A by
reserving for the income of the Panchayat a major portion of the
land belonging to a person holding land within the ceiling limit -
Except the cursory reference in the JUR, this Court did not even
refer to the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Bhagat Ram - A judgment of the Constitution Bench would be
binding on the Benches of a lesser strength - A bench strength
of two Judges could not have ignored the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram - Ignoring the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram and taking a view totally
contrary to it would amount to a material error, manifest on the
face of the order and would undermine its soundness - Further,
the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full Bench
of the High Court in Jai Singh II, which findings were given by
relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court
896
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Bhagat Ram, and not showing as to how the findings therein
were erroneous in law, would also amount to an error, apparent
on the face of the record - Furthermore, the non-consideration
of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of the High Court in Jai
Singh II, that on account of more than 100 decisions rendered by
various Benches of the High Court, the doctrine of stare decisis
is applicable, would also be an error apparent on the face of the
record - Judgment and order of this Court dated 07.04.2022 in Civil
Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to
file. [Paras 54-58, 46, 65, 67, 69]
Review Jurisdiction - Scope:
Held: Scope of review by this Court is very limited - Review
would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made
out - Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case - The review of the judgment would be
permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice - Such an error should be an error apparent on the face
of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished
out and searched. [Paras 12, 13]
Case Law Cited
Bhagat Ram & others v. State of Punjab & others [1967] 2 SCR
165 : AIR 1967 SC 927 - followed.
Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others [1965]
1 SCR 82 : AIR 1965 SC 632 - held inapplicable.
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab & another [1967] 2 SCR 143 : AIR
1967 SC 856; Jai Singh & others v. State of Haryana (2003) SCC
OnLine P&H 409; State of Punjab v. Gurjant Singh and others
(2001) SCC OnLine SC 1488; Sow Chandra Kante and another
v. Sheikh Habib [1975] 3 SCR 933 : (1975) 1 SCC 674; Parsion
Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others [1997] Supp. 4 SCR
470 : (1997) 8 SCC 715; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others [2005] Supp. 2 SCR
517 : (2005) 6 SCC 651; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others
[2013] 11 SCR 25 : (2013) 8 SCC 320; Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others [2013] 2 SCR 1045 :
(2013) 8 SCC 337; Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
897
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
State Electricity Board and others [2019] 16 SCR 252 : (2020) 2
SCC 677; Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through legal representatives
and others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others [2020] 11 SCR 865 :
(2021) 13 SCC 1 - referred to.
List of Acts
Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961; East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948;
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964; Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949.
List of Keywords
Review; Scope of review jurisdiction; Material error apparent/
manifest on the face of the order/record; Miscarriage of justice;
Constitution Bench judgment ignored; View contrary to Constitution
Bench judgment; Common pool of land; "shamilat deh"; Unutilized
land not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors;
Common purposes; Land reserved for common purposes cannot
be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors; Reserved Land not put
to common use; Vesting in the Panchayat; Land reserved but
not earmarked for any common purpose under the Consolidation
Scheme; Proprietary body; Title of land vests in the proprietary
body; Management of the lands done on behalf of the proprietary
body; Bachat lands; Gram Panchayat; Lands within the ceiling
limit or not; Reservation of land for income of the Panchayat;
"acquisition by the State"; "modification or extinguishment of
rights"; Doctrine of stare decisis.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2023
In
Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2022 of the Supreme
Court of India in C.A. No. 6990 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
B.K. Satija, A.A.G., Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik,
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Advs., Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Rahul Rathore,
Akshay Kjindal, Shiv Bhatnagar, Shaurya Lamba, Gautam Sharma,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Jitesh Malik, Chander Kiran, Rahul Govil, Varun
898
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Shobit, Raj Singh, Ashok Kumar, Ms. Beena, Satish Kumar, Ms.
Anubha Agrawal, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta,
Rakshit Rathi, Mrs. Shashi Verma, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Sanjay
Rathi, Sanchya Bhardwaj, Mukesh Sansanwal, Rajiv, Ms. Megha
Gaur, Vibhav Mishra, Parmanand Gaur, Daya Krishan Sharma, D K
Sharma, Yashdeep, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Rohit Vats, Piyush Goel,
Ankit Bhanot, Shubham Rana, Pushkar Vats, Ms. Simranjeet Singh
Rekhi, Shubham Kumar, Harsh Saxena, Ravindra Bana, Rajesh
Kumar, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms.
Akansha Singh Yadav, Yogesh Yadav, Ms. Shivika Nehra, Chander
Shekhar Ashri, Ashok Kumar Singh, Shantwanu Singh, Rahul Dubey,
Raj Kishor Sinha, Ms. Pragya Singh, Sunny Singh, Akshay Singh, Ajay
Pal, Karan Kapoor, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shrey Kapoor,
A. Venayagam Balan, Ankit Swarup, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
INDEX*
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND............
Paras 1 to 3
II.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Paras 4 to 11
III.
CONSIDERATION ON THE SCOPE OF
REVIEW JURISDICTION
Paras 12 to 14
IV.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT
IN JAI SINGH II
Paras 15 to 21
V.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
BENCH JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT IN
RANJIT SINGH, AJIT SINGH AND BHAGAT
RAM
Paras 22 to 58
VI.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT
IN JAI SINGH II REFERRING ITS EARLIER
JUDGMENT IN GURJANT SINGH AND
SEVERAL OTHER JUDGMENTS
Paras 59 to 65
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
899
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN
JAI SINGH II WITH REGARD TO DOCTRINE
OF STARE DECISIS
Paras 66 to 67
VIII.
CONCLUSION
Para 68 to 69
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.
The present review petition has been filed by the original respondent
No.28 in the Appeal, seeking review of the judgment of this Court
passed on 7th April 2022, thereby allowing the Civil Appeal No. 6990
of 2014 filed by the State of Haryana against the judgement and
order passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "Full Bench of
the High Court") in Civil Writ Petition No. 5877 of 1992 dated 13th
March 2003
2.
The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present review petition
are thus:
2.1 The State of Haryana, by way of Government Gazette
Notification dated 11th February 1992 (hereinafter referred to as
"Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992") inserted sub-clause (6) to Section
2(g) of the Haryana1 Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act") along with an
explanation to the said sub-clause which received the assent
of the President on 14th January 1992. The sub-clause (6) to
Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act reads thus:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -
xxx xxx xxx
(g) "shamilat deh" includesxxx xxx xxx
(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a
village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1
For the word "Punjab" deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. 01.11.1966 vide Haryana Act No.15 of
2021, the Haryana Short Titles Amendment Act 2021 dated 05.04.2021.
900
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management
and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat
under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.
Explanation - Lands entered in the column of
ownership of record of rights as "Jumla Malkan
Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad", "Jumla
Malkan" or "Mushtarka Malkan" shall be shamilat
deh within the meaning of this section."
2.2 Being aggrieved by the said amendment, the present review
petitioner along with similarly situated landowners, holding land
in villages, who contribute a share of their holdings to form a
common pool of land called 'shamilat deh', meant exclusively
for the common purposes of the village inhabitants filed a batch
of Writ Petitions before the High Court. Considering the matter
to be involving important questions of law, likely to arise in a
large number of cases and involving a large chunk of land; the
Hon'ble Division Bench, then seized of the matter vide Orders
dated 01st June, 1993 directed the papers of the case to be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Full
Bench of the High Court for determination of the vires of the
Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 and the explanation thereof. The
Full Bench of the High Court vide judgement dated 18th January
1995 allowed the batch of Writ Petitions, wherein the judgement
came to be recorded in CWP No. 5877 of 1992.
2.3 The State of Haryana challenged the decision of the Full Bench
of the High Court before this Court vide Civil Appeal No. 5480
of 1995; wherein this Court held that certain essentials of Article
31-A of the Constitution of India were overlooked and remanded
the matter back to the High Court for re-consideration of the
issues in light of Article 31A of the Constitution of India.
2.4 Accordingly, the Full Bench of the High Court vide judgement
and order dated 13th March 2003, partly allowed the petition in
terms of the following:
"In view of the discussion made above, we hold that:
(i)
The sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
and the explanation appended thereto, is only an
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
901
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
elucidation of the existing provisions of the said
Act read with provisions contained in the East
Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention
of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
(ii)
the un-amended provisions of the Act of 1961
and, in particular, Section 2(g)(1) read with
Sections 18 and 23-A of the Act of 1948 and
Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 1949 cover all such
lands which have been specifically earmarked in
a consolidation scheme prepared under Section
14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and confirmed under
Section 20, which has been implemented under
the provisions of Section 24 and no other lands;
(iii) the lands which have been contributed by the
proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their
holdings imposed during the consolidation
proceedings and which have not been earmarked
for any common purpose in the consolidation
scheme prepared under Section 14 read with
Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of
ownership as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran
Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column
of possession with the Gram Panchayat or the
State Government, as the case may be, on
the dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) and
the explanation appended thereto or any other
provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Act of 1948;
(iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the
consolidation scheme, reserved for common
purposes, whether utilized or not, shall vest with
the State Government or the Gram Panchayat,
as the case may be, even though in the column
of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka
Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad
Arazi Khewat etc."
2.5 The Full Bench of the High Court also issued certain
consequential directions with regard to certain mutation entries
made by the Revenue Authorities.
902
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2.6 Being aggrieved thus, the State of Haryana filed a Civil
Appeal No. 6990 before this Court, which came to be allowed
by judgement and order under review dated 07th April 2022
(hereinafter referred to as "JUR"); and the Writ Petition of the
Original Writ Petitioners was consequently dismissed.
2.7 Seeking review, the present Review Petition has been filed by
the review petitioner. This Court on 31st January. 2023 passed
the following order in the present Review Petitions:
"List this review petition for hearing in open Court."
2.8 Subsequently, this Court on 10th April, 2023 passed the following
order:
"1. Permission to file review petition(s) is granted.
2. Delay Condoned.
3. Issue Notice on the I.A. (Diary) Nos. 69003
and 69005 of 2023 in Diary No. 14941 of 2022,
M.A. (Diary) No. 13972 of 2023 and on the review
petition(s), returnable on 24.04.2023.
4. In addition to normal mode of service, liberty is
granted to serve the Standing Counsel for the State."
3.
Accordingly, we have heard Shri Narender Hooda, learned Senior
Counsel and Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the review petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kant, learned Senior
Counsel and Shri B.K. Satija, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent-State of Haryana.
II.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4.
Shri Narender Hooda submits that the JUR is totally contrary to the
law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others2 (hereinafter
referred to as "Bhagat Ram"). It is submitted that the JUR also does
not correctly consider the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and others3 (hereinafter referred to as "Ranjit Singh") so
2
[1967] 2 SCR 165 : AIR 1967 SC 927
3
[1965] 1 SCR 82 : AIR 1965 SC 632
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
903
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
also another Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab & another4 (hereinafter referred
to as "Ajit Singh").
5.
Shri Hooda submits that after considering the provisions of Section
23-A and Section 24 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Consolidation Act"), this Court in Bhagat Ram has clearly held
that, till possession has changed under Section 24, the management
and control does not vest in the Panchayat under Section 23-A. It
has also been held that the rights of the holders are not modified or
extinguished till persons have changed possession and entered into
the possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme. He
therefore submits that the Full Bench of the High Court in the case
of Jai Singh & others vs. State of Haryana5 (hereinafter referred to
as "Jai Singh II") has correctly relying on Bhagat Ram held that the
land which is reserved, but not earmarked for any common purpose,
would not come under the purview of Section 2(g)(6) of the 1961
Act, as inserted by Haryana Act No.9 of 1992.
6.
Shri Hooda submits that the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ajit
Singh was dealing with the lands which were reserved for common
purposes such as khals, paths, khurrahs, panchayat ghars and
schools etc. It was held that in view of Rule 16(ii) of the Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules,
1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Consolidation Rules"), the title
still vests in the proprietary body, and the management of the said
lands is done on behalf of the proprietary body. It was further held
that the land was used for the common needs and benefits of the
estate or estates concerned. This Court held that a fraction of each
proprietor's land was taken and formed into a common pool so that
the whole may be used for the common needs and benefits of the
estate as mentioned above. It has been held that the proprietors
naturally would also be entitled to a share in the benefits along with
others. In the facts of the said case, this Court held that all such
lands, which had been specifically earmarked in the Consolidation
Scheme for the purposes mentioned therein and were used for the
4
[1967] 2 SCR 143: AIR 1967 SC 856
5
2003 SCC OnLine P&H 409
904
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
purposes therein for the benefit of the proprietors among others,
would not amount to acquisition, but a 'modification' of the rights.
It was held that, by such 'modification', the beneficiary was not the
State and as such, would not be hit by the second proviso to Article
31-A of the Constitution of India.
7.
Shri Hooda further submits that even in Ranjit Singh, the Consolidation
Scheme earmarked lands reserved under Section 18(c) of the
Consolidation Act for various common purposes. The Constitution
Bench of this Court held that the provisions for the assignment of
lands to village Panchayat for the use of the general community, or
for hospitals, schools, manure pits, tanning grounds etc. enures for
the benefit of rural population and it must be considered to be an
essential part of the redistribution of holdings and open lands.
8.
Shri Hooda further submitted that in a catena of judgments, this
Court has held that the lands, though reserved but not earmarked
and put for any common purpose under the Consolidation Scheme
prepared under Section 14 of the Consolidation Act read with Rules
5 and 7 of the Consolidation Rules and entered in the column of
ownership as 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab
Rasad Arazi Khewat' and in the column of possession with the
proprietors, also known as Bachat lands, would not vest in the Gram
Panchayat or the State Government. Shri Hooda submits that based
on such judgments, thousands of transactions have been entered
into between the parties. It is submitted that, though invoking the
doctrine of stare decisis was not necessary, this Court in the JUR
has not even touched that aspect of the matter. All the judgments
which have been holding the field for decades and thousands of
transactions which have been entered into between the parties, have
been set at naught at the stroke of a pen by the JUR.
9.
Shri Hooda further submits that in view of the JUR, the rights of the
parties which were crystalized by the judgments of the High Court
and which was affirmed by this Court by judgment dated 27th August,
20016 have also been adversely affected without such parties having
been heard. He therefore submits that the JUR needs to be recalled
and the appeals filed by the State deserve to be dismissed.
6
2001 SCC OnLine SC 1488 [State of Punjab vs. Gurjant Singh and others (CA Nos.5709-5714 of 2001
@ SLP(C) Nos.16173-16178 of 2000)
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
905
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
10. Per contra, Shri Pradeep Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana submits that the
present review petition itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that
the review applicant was a party respondent to the appeal and the
JUR has been delivered after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties. It is submitted that the scope of review is very limited. It is
also submitted that under the guise of a review, a party cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already
been addressed and decided. He placed reliance on the following
judgments of this Court in support of his submissions:
(i)
Sow Chandra Kante and another vs. Sheikh Habib7
(ii) Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others8
(iii) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics
& Hydropower Ltd. and others9
(iv) Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others10
(v) Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited
and others11
(vi) Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State
Electricity Board and others12
(vii) Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through legal representatives and
others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others13
11. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have
scrutinized the material on record.
III.
CONSIDERATION ON THE SCOPE OF REVIEW JURISDICTION
12. At the outset, we must reiterate that the scope of review by this
Court is very limited. The scope of review jurisdiction has been
delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. We would not like
7
[1975] 3 SCR 933 : (1975) 1 SCC 674
8
[1997] Supp. 4 SCR 470 : (1997) 8 SCC 715
9
[2005] Supp. 2 SCR 517 : (2005) 6 SCC 651
10
[2013] 11 SCR 25 : (2013) 8 SCC 320
11
[2013] 2 SCR 1045 : (2013) 8 SCC 337
12
[2019] 16 SCR 252 : (2020) 2 SCC 677
13
[2020] 11 SCR 865 : (2021) 13 SCC 1
906
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to burden the present judgment by reproducing all those judgments.
This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others
(supra), after surveying the earlier law laid down by this Court has
summarized the principles thus:
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i)
Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii)
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144
: (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955)
1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The
same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v.
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337
: JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i)
A repetition of old and overruled argument is
not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii)
Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines
its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
907
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(v)
A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished
out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court,
it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the
review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter
had been negatived."
13. It is thus settled that the review would be permissible only if there is
a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other
sufficient reason is made out. We are also equally aware of the fact
that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case. The review of the judgment would be permissible only
if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are also aware that
such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record
and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
14. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we will have to examine the
present case.
IV.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH
OF THE HIGH COURT IN JAI SINGH II
15. The background in which Jai Singh II has been decided has already
been stated by us in the beginning. In the first round of litigation,
the High Court had held the provisions of Section 2(g)(6) of the
1961 Act to be unconstitutional being violative of second proviso to
Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. This Court in the first round
has set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and
remanded the matter for deciding the factual aspect as to whether
the lands in question were within the ceiling limit or not.
908
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. As such, the scope of the dispute in the second round was very
limited. The Full Bench of the High Court, after coming to a finding
of fact that the lands in question were within the ceiling limit, partly
allowed the petition. The operative part of the judgment of the
Full Bench of the High Court has already been reproduced by us
hereinabove in paragraph 2.4.
17. The State was not aggrieved with the findings on issue nos. (i), (ii)
and (iv).
By clause (i), the Full Bench of the High Court held that sub-section
(6) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act and the explanation appended
thereto is only an elucidation of the existing provisions of the said
Act read with the provisions contained in the Consolidation Act.
By clause (ii), it held that the unamended provisions of the 1961 Act
and, in particular, Section 2(g)(1) read with Sections 17 and 23-A
of the Consolidation Act and Rule 16(ii) of the Consolidation Rules
cover all such lands which have been specifically earmarked in a
consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5
and 7 and confirmed under Section 20, which has been implemented
under the provisions of Section 24 and no other lands.
By clause (iv), the Full Bench of the High Court held that, all
such lands in the consolidation scheme which were reserved
for common purposes, whether utilized or not, shall vest with
the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may
be; even though in the column of ownership the entries may be
'Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi
Khewat' etc.
18. The grievance of the State was only with regard to clause (iii),
wherein it has been held that the lands which had been contributed
by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings
imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have
not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation
scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and
have been entered in the column of ownership as 'Jumla Malkan
Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat', and in the column
of possession with the Gram Panchayat or the State Government,
would not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government but
continue to vest with the proprietors.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
909
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
19. This Court in the JUR has held that conclusion no.(iii) arrived at by
the High Court was erroneous and not sustainable and accordingly
set it aside. It has been held that the unutilized land was not
available for redistribution amongst the proprietors. This Court
further held that the findings recorded by the different benches of
the High Court were clearly erroneous and not sustainable. This
Court held that the land reserved for common purposes cannot be
re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular
given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use.
This Court held that the 'common purpose' is a dynamic expression
as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the
society and the passing times and therefore, once the land has
been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the
proprietors for redistribution.
20. The limited enquiry that would be permissible for us in these
proceedings is as to whether the said finding is a material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or
results in the miscarriage of justice or not.
21. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that it will not be permissible
for us to hear the matter as if it was an appeal arising from the JUR.
V.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH
JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT IN RANJIT SINGH, AJIT
SINGH AND BHAGAT RAM
22. For considering the controversy, a reference to three Constitution
Bench Judgments of this Court would be necessary.
23. The first one is in the case of Ranjit Singh. In the said case, the
Constitution Bench of this Court was concerned with the consolidation
proceedings in which portions of land from those commonly owned
by the appellants therein as proprietors, had been reserved for
the village Panchayat and handed over to it for diverse purposes;
whereas, other portions had been reserved either for non-proprietors
or for the common purposes of the villages. In the said case, in the
village Virk Kalan, 270 kanals and 13 marlas had been given to the
village Panchayat for management and realization of income, even
though the ownership was still shown in village papers as Shamilat
Deh in the names of the proprietors; 10 kanals and 3 marlas had
been reserved for abadi to be distributed among persons entitled
910
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
thereto, and 3 kanals and 7 marlas had been reserved for manure
pits. Similarly, in village Sewana, certain lands were set apart for the
village Panchayat for extension of the abadi and to enable grants of
certain land to be made to each family of non-proprietors and certain
lands had been reserved for a primary school and some more for
a phirni. Similarly, in village Mehnd, land had been reserved for the
village Panchayat, a school, tanning ground, hospital, cremation
ground and for non-proprietors. The proprietors were not paid
compensation for the lands and as such, taking away and allotment
of the lands was the subject matter of challenge in those appeals
in the said case.
24. The appeals before this Court were heard and closed for judgment
on 27th April 1964. The judgment had to be postponed till after the
vacation. However, before the Court could reassemble after the
vacation on 20th July 1964, the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act, 1964 received the assent of the President i.e. on 20th June,
1964. Vide the said Amendment, a new sub-clause (a) in clause (2)
of Article 31-A was substituted retrospectively and added a proviso
to clause (1). The appeals were set down to be mentioned on July
20/23, 1964, and counsel were asked if, in view of the amendment,
they wished to say anything. However, neither of parties wished to
argue. The appeals were thus decided on the old arguments, though
it was clear to the Court that the amendment of Article 31-A, which
had a far-reaching effect, must have affected one or other of the
parties. The Constitution Bench upheld the judgment of the High
Court which had held that the transfer of shamilat deh owned by the
proprietors to the village Panchayat for the purposes of management
and the conferral of proprietary rights on non-proprietors in respect
of lands in abadi deh was not ultra vires Article 31 inasmuch as, no
compensation was payable.
25. It must be noted that the judgment of the High Court was rendered
by interpreting Article 31-A as it existed prior to the Constitution
(Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. This Court though called upon
the parties to address the Court on the effect of the Constitution
(Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, no arguments were advanced.
As such, in Ranjit Singh, this Court did not have the occasion to
consider the effect of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment)
Act, 1964 by which the second proviso was added to Article 31-A
of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the judgment
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
911
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh will not have
a bearing on the present matter.
26. In the case of Ajit Singh (supra), again the challenge was to the
scheme made under the provisions of the Consolidation Act. One of
the grounds raised before the High Court as well as this Court was
that the compensation must be paid to the appellant for the land
reserved in the scheme for various purposes in accordance with
the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) inserted by the Constitution
(Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
27. It will be relevant to refer to the following paragraphs in Ajit Singh:
"6. Coming now to the third point raised by Mr Iyenger, we
may first mention that it was held by this Court in Ranjit
Singh v. State of Punjab [(1965) 1 SCR 82] that the Act was
protected from challenge by Article 31-A. It is necessary to
set out the relevant constitutional provisions. The relevant
portion of Article 31-A reads as under:
"31-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
Article 13, no law providing for-
(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or
of any rights therein or the extinguishment or
modification of any such rights..........
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that
it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges
any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article
19 or Article 31:
Provided that * * *
Provided further that where any law makes any
provision for the acquisition by the State of any
estate and where any land comprised therein is
held by a person under his personal cultivation,
it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire
any portion of such land as is within the ceiling
limit applicable to him under any law for the
time being in force or any building or structure
standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless
the law relating to the acquisition of such land,
912
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
building or structure, provides for payment of
compensation at a rate which shall not be less
than the market value thereof.
(2)(b) the expression 'rights' in relation to an
estate shall include any rights vesting in a
proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor,
tenure-holder, raiyat, under-raiyat or other
intermediary and any rights or privileges in
respect of land revenue."
Relevant portions of Articles 19 and 31 may also
be set out because the learned counsel have
laid stress on the language employed therein.
"19. (1) All citizens shall have the right-
(f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
31. (1) No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law.
(2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired
or requisitioned save for a public purpose and
save by authority of a law which provides for
compensation for the property so acquired or
requisitioned and either fixes the amount of
the compensation or specifies the principles
on which, and the manner in which, the
compensation is to be determined and given;
and no such law shall be called in question in
any court on the ground that the compensation
provided by that law is not adequate.
(2-A) Where a law does not provide for the
transfer of the ownership or right to possession
of any property to the State or to a corporation
owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be
deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisition
or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that
it deprives any person of his property."
7. It would be noticed that Article 31-A(1)(a) mentions
four categories; first acquisition by the State of an estate;
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
913
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
second, acquisition by the State of rights in an estate;
third, the extinguishment of rights in an estate, and,
fourthly, the modification of rights in an estate. These four
categories are mentioned separately and are different.
In the first two categories the State "acquires" either an
estate or rights in an estate. In other words, there is a
transference of an estate or the rights in an estate to the
State.