# THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 10 S.C.R. 903
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-04-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-haryana-through-secretary-to-government-of-haryana-v-jai-singh-ors-35667
- **Pages:** 83

## Headnote

Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
- Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) - Constitutional
validity of - Held: The Amending Act was enacted and published
after obtaining assent of the President of India, thus such Act is
part of the agrarian reform - Therefore, the Amending Act is
protected in terms of Art. 31A of the Constitution - The Amending
Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional
infirmity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 31A.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act -
Classification of, into three categories - First category being shamilat
deh recorded in ownership of Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation
which vests unequivocally with the commencement of the Punjab
and PEPSU Act - No dispute about land falling in the first category
as held by the High Court in Hukam Singh and subsequently affirmed
by Supreme Court in Malwinder Singh as being part of the agrarian
reforms.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
as amended by the Amending Act - Classification of, into three
categories - Second category being land for common purposes
reserved during the process of consolidation by applying pro-rata
cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not necessarily falling within
the permissible ceiling limits under the land ceiling laws - Held:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Land falling in the second category was held to be a part of the
agrarian reforms protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution by the
Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh
and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat Singh being subsequently
affirmed by the Supreme Court - The land falling in second category
i.e., land reserved for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling
limit of the proprietor would vest with Panchayat - The Amending
Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their
ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of
consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - The
Amending Act is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment
as the land stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit
Singh - Hence, s.2(g)(6) r/w s.4 of the Act, 1961 vests the land
reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village
Panchayat.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
as amended by the Amending Act - Classification of, into three
categories - Third category being common purposes land reserved
by pro-rata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling
laws, the management and control of which vests with the panchayat
- Held: In respect of the third category, the land within the ceiling
limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes and was
found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench of the
Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh - In appeal, a Constitution Bench
of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh held that the proprietor is not entitled
to compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested
and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat,
and thus it was not a case of acquisition of land - Thus, in respect
of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling
limits, it is the management and control alone which would vest with
the panchayat - However such

## Text

_Characters 0–39,968 of 193,625. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39968 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
903
 [2022] 10 S.C.R. 903
903
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA
v.
JAI SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014)
APRIL 07, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
- Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act) - Constitutional
validity of - Held: The Amending Act was enacted and published
after obtaining assent of the President of India, thus such Act is
part of the agrarian reform - Therefore, the Amending Act is
protected in terms of Art. 31A of the Constitution - The Amending
Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional
infirmity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 31A.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Act, 1961, as amended by the Amending Act -
Classification of, into three categories - First category being shamilat
deh recorded in ownership of Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation
which vests unequivocally with the commencement of the Punjab
and PEPSU Act - No dispute about land falling in the first category
as held by the High Court in Hukam Singh and subsequently affirmed
by Supreme Court in Malwinder Singh as being part of the agrarian
reforms.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
as amended by the Amending Act - Classification of, into three
categories - Second category being land for common purposes
reserved during the process of consolidation by applying pro-rata
cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not necessarily falling within
the permissible ceiling limits under the land ceiling laws - Held:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Land falling in the second category was held to be a part of the
agrarian reforms protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution by the
Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh
and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat Singh being subsequently
affirmed by the Supreme Court - The land falling in second category
i.e., land reserved for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling
limit of the proprietor would vest with Panchayat - The Amending
Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their
ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of
consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - The
Amending Act is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment
as the land stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit
Singh - Hence, s.2(g)(6) r/w s.4 of the Act, 1961 vests the land
reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village
Panchayat.
Land Laws - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 (the Amending Act)
-Shamilat deh (common land) - Common land falling in s.2(g)(1)
and (6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
as amended by the Amending Act - Classification of, into three
categories - Third category being common purposes land reserved
by pro-rata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling
laws, the management and control of which vests with the panchayat
- Held: In respect of the third category, the land within the ceiling
limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes and was
found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench of the
Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh - In appeal, a Constitution Bench
of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh held that the proprietor is not entitled
to compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested
and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat,
and thus it was not a case of acquisition of land - Thus, in respect
of the land taken from the proprietors from their permissible ceiling
limits, it is the management and control alone which would vest with
the panchayat - However such vesting of management and control
is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for
redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been
carved out not only include the present requirements but the future
requirements as well - The Panchayat will not have title over the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
land but as part of management and control, the panchayat is at
liberty to put the land for the use for the common purposes - Such
common purposes as defined under s.2(bb) of the East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948 are interchangeable and also can be used for any other
common purposes - Though the land vests with the Panchayat, but
such land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit
of village community - Even if any land reserved for common
purposes is not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot
be termed as unutilized land (i.e. Bachat land) open for purpose of
repartition amongst the proprietors - 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 - Since 'common purpose' is a dynamic
expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement
of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has
been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the
proprietors for redistribution - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
Land Laws - Municipalities - Haryana Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 - Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 - Whether if whole or part of
the Panchayat area comes within the municipal limits, and the
Panchayat ceases to exist, land would vest with the municipality
and will not revert back to the proprietors - Held, No - s.7(4) of the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions
of the 1973 Municipal Act - However, both the statutes had
undergone extensive changes after the insertion of Part IX and IX
A in the Constitution empowering the third tier of the democratic set
up - The Panchayati Raj Act contemplates vesting of property of
Gram Panchayat with the municipality, whereas the Municipal Act
takes into its ambit the properties which were vesting with Panchayat
- The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the
property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it
would vest with the municipality - Thus, the word 'whole' appearing
in s.7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram
Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits - Thus, if the
whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal
limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
reforms would stand vested with the municipality - Such vesting is
not a part of agrarian reforms but shall be on account of extension
of municipal limits - When the municipal limits are extended, the
residents of the Panchayat also became residents of the municipality
- The common purposes of the village community prior to extension
of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for
which land can be utilized by the municipality - Therefore, such
vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition
for the first time but transition of the land reserved for common
purposes in the changed scenario when the land vest with the
municipality - The argument of the proprietors that if whole of the
Sabha area merges with the municipality, only then there can be
vesting of land reserved for common purposes with the municipality
is untenable - Such an argument would lead to anomalous results -
The title, right and interest of the property cannot be held in
abeyance - There has to be continued control and management
over the land reserved for common purposes under the 1948 Act -
Therefore, even if a part of Sabha area is merged into the
municipality, the municipality will have control over the land so
reserved for the erstwhile village community which will now form
part of the urban area - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
Land Laws - Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and
Rent Recovery Act, 1985 - Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 - Held: The scope of the provisions under
the 1985 Act and the 1961 Act are different and distinct.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD : 1. A reading of the previous judgments and the
history of the shamilat deh (common land) in the State of Punjab,
including State of Haryana, shows that the common land for the
purposes of the present appeals falling in Section 2(g)(1) and (6)
of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as
amended by the Amending Act can be broadly classified into three
categories: (i) shamilat deh recorded in the ownership of the Gram
Panchayat prior to consolidation which vests unequivocally with
the commencement of the Punjab and PEPSU Act. (ii) land for
common purposes reserved during the process of consolidation
by applying pro-rata cut from the holdings of the proprietors, not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
necessarily falling within the permissible ceiling limits under the
land ceiling laws. (iii) common purposes land reserved by prorata cut within the permissible limits as per the land ceiling laws,
the management and control of which vests with the panchayat.
[Para 43][941-D-F]
2. There is no dispute about the land falling in the first
category as held by the High Court in Hukam Singh and
subsequently affirmed by this Court in Malwinder Singh as being
part of the agrarian reforms. [Para 44][941-G]
3.1. The land falling in the second category was held to be
a part of the agrarian reforms protected by Article 31A of the
Constitution by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Kishan Singh and Jagat Singh, with the decision in Jagat
Singh being subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. [Para
46][942-B-C]
3.2. The land falling in second category i.e., land reserved
for common purposes, not falling within the ceiling limit of the
proprietor would vest with Panchayat. The Amending Act does
not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as
such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation
scheme reserving land for common purposes. The Amending Act
is only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land
stood vested in the panchayat on the strength of Ranjit Singh.
Hence, Section 2(g)(6) read with Section 4 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 vests the land reserved
for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut in the village
Panchayat. [Para 48][945-D-F]
4.1. In respect of the third category, the land within the
ceiling limit of the proprietor was pooled for common purposes
and was found to be part of the agrarian reforms by Division Bench
of the Punjab High Court in Ajit Singh. In appeal, a Constitution
Bench of this Court held that the proprietor is not entitled to
compensation as the title of the proprietor is not being divested
and that management and control alone vests with the panchayat.
It was thus held that it was not a case of acquisition of land. [Paras
59 and 61][950-B-C; 952-G-H]
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
4.2. In respect of the land taken from the proprietors from
their permissible ceiling limits, it is the management and control
alone which would vest with the panchayat. The management and
control include leasing of land and use of the land by nonproprietors, Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes etc. which
is for the benefit of the village community. Therefore, vesting
under Section 4 would be limited to management and control.
For the land taken from the proprietors by applying pro-rata cut
from the permissible ceiling limits of the proprietors, management
and control alone vests with the Panchayat but such vesting of
management and control is irreversible and the land would not
revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common
purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the
present requirements but the future requirements as well. Such
land would not be available for sale so as to confer title on the
purchaser in view of the fact that the Panchayat is not the full
owner of the land but while exercising control and management,
it is duty bound to safeguard the land for the benefit of the village
community. [Para 63][955-E-H; 956-A]
4.3. The Panchayat will not have title over the land but as
part of management and control, the panchayat is at liberty to put
the land for the use for the common purposes. Such common
purposes as defined under Section 2(bb) of the East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948 are interchangeable and also can be used for any other
common purposes. Common purposes are ever evolving, they
are not fixed in time. With the change in time and expectations of
the village community, common purposes have to be given wider
meaning in view of the object of such reservation of land.
Therefore, though the panchayat has management and control in
respect of the land which was carved out from the land falling
within the ceiling limits, the panchayat would have complete
control over the said part of the land. The word 'vesting' appearing
in Section 4 has to be read down to mean that management and
control of such land alone would vest in the panchayat. [Para
64][956-B-D]
4.4. Though the land vests with the Panchayat, but such
land should be utilized only for common purposes for the benefit
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
of village community. Such benefits to the village community is
not limited to traditional benefits of the village community i.e.,
land for grazing of cattle, dumping of dead animals, schools and
hospitals but also the activities which would be required in future,
keeping in view the modernization of the village economy which
will ultimately for the benefit of the village community. [Para
66][956-H; 957-A-B]
4.5. It cannot be said that the land which has been cultivated
by the proprietors on pro-rata cut and which have not been
earmarked for any common purpose, commonly called as Bachat
land, shall not vest with the Gram Panchayat. The land reserved
for common purposes was reserved for the requirement of village
community in praesenti and in future. If the land has not been put
to use for any common purpose soon after the consolidation and/
or thereafter, it cannot be said to be a Bachat land. The land
mass is not going to increase but the requirement of the people
and the expectations of the village community is ever expanding.
Therefore, even if any land reserved for common purposes is
not actually being put to any common purpose, it cannot be termed
as a Bachat land open for the purpose of repartition amongst the
proprietors. [Para 68][957-C-F]
4.6. The land reserved for common purposes cannot be repartitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular
given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common
use. Since 'common purpose' is a dynamic expression, as it keeps
changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the
passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for
common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for
redistribution. [Para 84][967-H; 968-A-B]
5.1. Section 7(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be
read with the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.
However, both the statutes had undergone extensive changes
after the insertion of Part IX and IX A in the Constitution
empowering the third tier of the democratic set up. The Panchayati
Raj Act contemplates vesting of property of Gram Panchayat with
the municipality., whereas the Municipal Act takes into its ambit
the properties which were vesting with Panchayat. The 1973
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of
Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest
with the municipality. Thus, the word 'whole' appearing in Section
7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat
area coming within the municipal limits. [Para 103][980-G; 981A-B;]
5.2. If the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included
in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes
as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the
municipality. Such vesting is not a part of agrarian reforms but
shall be on account of extension of municipal limits. When the
municipal limits are extended, the residents of the Panchayat also
became residents of the municipality. The common purposes of
the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits
would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be
utilized by the municipality. Therefore, such vesting of land
reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first
time but transition of the land reserved for common purposes in
the changed scenario when the land vest with the municipality.
[Para 104][981-B-D]
5.3. The argument of the proprietors that if whole of the
Sabha area merges with the municipality, only then there can be
vesting of land reserved for common purposes with the
municipality is untenable. Such an argument would lead to
anomalous results. The title, right and interest of the property
cannot be held in abeyance. There has to be continued control
and management over the land reserved for common purposes
under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention
of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Therefore, even if a part of Sabha
area is merged into the municipality, the municipality will have
control over the land so reserved for the erstwhile village
community which will now form part of the urban area. [Para
105][981-E-F]
5.4. In respect of the land forming part of permissible limits
of the proprietor under the land ceiling laws, the management
and control vest with the Panchayat. Neither the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 nor the 1948 Act
contemplates redistribution of land to the proprietors. It is an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
irrevocable act which cannot be undone. Therefore, once land
vest with the Panchayat, it can be used for common purposes of
the community and will never revert back to the proprietors.
[Para 106][982-A-C]
6. The scope of the two provisions under the Haryana
Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985
and the 1961 Act are different and distinct. Under the 1985 Act,
the Gram Panchayat could seek eviction from unauthorized
occupants, the management and control as of the land reserved
for common purposes whereof vested in the Gram Panchayat in a
summary way where the possession of the occupant was
unauthorized. But if there is dispute in respect of the nature of
occupation by the occupant or by the panchayat, procedure under
the 1961 Act alone can be resorted to as Section 13A of the 1961
Act confers power upon the Collector to decide the question of
right, title or interest in any land or immoveable property vested
or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat. Therefore, in
case of a dispute about the right, title or interest in any land for
or on behalf of any person, the remedy under the 1961 Act alone
can be exercised. This will include right, title or interest in all
the three categories of land i.e., shamilat deh owned by panchayat,
shamilat land vested in terms of 1948 Act falling in second category
and the land, the management and control whereof is vested with
the panchayat, land being within the permissible limits of the
proprietor, the management and control of which vest with the
panchayat. [Para 107][982-C-F]
7. Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the Amending Act is valid
and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity. The
entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata
cut had to be utilized by the Gram Panchayat for the present and
future needs of the village community and no part of the land can
be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. [Para 108][982-F-G]
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 632 :
[1965] 1 SCR 82; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
AIR 1967 SC 856 : [1967] 2 SCR 143; Atma Ram v.
State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 519 : [1959] 1 Suppl.
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
SCR 748; Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States
of Madras and Kerala AIR 1960 SC 1080 : [1960]
3 SCR 887; Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Ors. AIR 1967 SC 927 : [1967] 2 SCR 165; State of
Haryana v. Karnal Co-op. Farmers' Society Limited
(1993) 2 SCC 363 : [1993] 2 SCR 193; Gram
Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh,
(1985) 3 SCC 661 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28; Sukhdev
Singh v. Gram Sabha Bari khad (1977) 2 SCC 518
: [1977] 2 SCR 862; Mahant Sankarshan Ramanuja
Das Goswami, etc. v. State of Orissa and another AIR
1967 SC 59 : [1962] 3 SCR 250; Shish Ram & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 84 : [2000]
3 SCR 1122; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000)
6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; V. M. Salgaocar
& Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000)
5 SCC 373 : [2000] 2 SCR 1169; S. Shanmugavel
Nadar v. State of T.N. (2002) 8 SCC 361 : [2002]
2 Suppl. SCR 498; Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji
v. Union of India and another (2019) 20 SCC 705
: [2019] 4 SCR 222; Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Bombay v. M/s. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. AIR 1958
SC 868 : [1959] SCR 713 ; Notified Area Committee &
Anr. v. Des Raj & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 317 : [1995]
2 Suppl. SCR 567 and Municipal Committee, Sirhind v.
Parshotam Dass & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 324 : [1996]
2 SCR 678 - referred to.
Munsha Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
AIR 1960 P&H 317 (FB); Kishan Singh & Anr. v. The
State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1961 P&H 1; Jagat Singh
& Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1962 P&H
221 (FB); Jit Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR
1964 P&H 419 (FB); Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Anr ; (2017) 2 Punjab Law Reporter 605;
Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 P&H 220;
Parkash Singh & Ors. v. Joint Development
Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine P&H
26809; Parkash Singh & Ors. v. Joint Development
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine P&H
26809; Gurdial Singh v. State of Haryana 1979 PLJ
350; Bagga Singh v. The Commissioner, Ferozepur
Division, Ferozepur (1984) SCC OnLine P&H 384;
Gram Panchayat, Gunia Majri v. Director,
Consolidation of Holdings & Ors (1990) SCC OnLine
P&H 823; Baj Singh v. State of Punjab (1992) 1 PLR
10; Gram Panchayat, Village Bhedpura v. Additional
Director, Consolidation, Punjab (1997) 1 PLR 391;
Gurjant Singh v. Commissioner, Ferozepore Division
(2000) SCC OnLine P&H 56; Balwant Singh v. State
of Punjab (1992) SCC OnLine P&H 570; Rajender
Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 1980
P&H 37; State of Punjab v. S. Kehar Singh AIR 1959
P&H 8; 1958 SCC Online Punj 89; M/s. Hari Ram
Paras Ram v. State of Haryana ILR (1982) 1 Punjab
and Haryana 317 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1960] 3 SCR 887
referred to
Para 9
[1965] 1 SCR 82
referred to
Para 9
[1967] 2 SCR 143
referred to
Para 10
[1967] 2 SCR 165
referred to
Para 11
[1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 748
referred to
Para 12
[1993] 2 SCR 193
referred to
Para 22
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 28
referred to
Para 23
[1977] 2 SCR 862
referred to
Para 35
[1962] 3 SCR 250
referred to
Para 57
[2000] 3 SCR 1122
referred to
Para 65
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 75
[2000] 2 SCR 1169
referred to
Para 75
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 498
referred to
Para 75
[2019] 4 SCR 222
referred to
Para 80
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
[1959] SCR 713
referred to
Para 81
[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 567
referred to
Para 89
[1996] 2 SCR 678
referred to
Para 89
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6990
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2003 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.5877 of 1992.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.6610-6612 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos.6992, 6991,
6997 And 7001 of 2014, Civil Appeal No.4435 of 2015, Civil Appeal
Nos.1679, 1678, 1675, 1677 And 1680 of 2022.
Anil Grover, B. K. Satija, Ajay Bansal, AAGs, Pradeep Kant,
Manoj Swarup, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advs., Rajesh
Kumar Singh, Gautam Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Satish Kumar, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, Ms. Adira A. Nair, Ms. Babita Mishra, Dr. Monika Gusain,
Noopur Singhal, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani P.,
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Raghav Bhatia, Sanjay Singh, Siddharth Jain, Ms.
Aniket Jain, Umang Shankar, Javedur Rahman, Gurinder Singh Gill P. P.
Nayak, Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Ms. Aashna Gill, Pratap Singh, Ms.
Bhupinder, Suman Lohchab, Ajay Pal, Shish Pal Laler, S. D. Sharma,
Hitesh Kumar, Atul, Vedant Pradhan, Ravi Panwar, Anil Kumar Tripathi,
Umang Tripathi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya,
Vijay Dalal, Himanshu Sharma, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Seeta Ram Sharma,
Vinay Kumar, Sandeep Singh, Vikrant Y. S. Narula, Dhruv Shukla, Sahil
Garg Narwana, Sanjeev Chauhan, Pritesh Bhardwaj, Arpit Yadav, Robin
Khokhar, Bijender Singh Chudhery, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileswar
Jha, Ms. Madhu Koshla, Ms. Manju Jetley, Gaurav Yadava, Ms. Veena
Bansal, D. K. Sharma, Daya Krishan Sharma, Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Ravi
Ketan Bhardwaj, Anubha Agrawal, Rajiv Mangla, Pradeep K. Kaushik,
Aman Preet Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, V. S. Lakshmi, P. N. Puri, K.
K. Mohan, R. C. Kaushik, Ravindra Bana, Rajesh Kumar, G. Balaji,
Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ankur Mittal, Mrs.
Subhasish Bhowmick, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6990 OF 2014; CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
6610-6612 OF 2016; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6992 OF 2014; CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 6991 OF 2014; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6997 OF 2014;
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7001 OF 2014; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4435
OF 2015; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2022 AND CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 1677 OF 2022
1. The subject matter of challenge in the present appeals is the
amendments in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
19611, as inserted by Haryana Act No. 9/19922, published on 11.2.1992
after the assent of the President of India.
2. The amendments carried out by the Amending Act came up
for consideration before the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in a judgment reported as Jai Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana3.
The High Court struck down the amendments introduced and held as
under:
"In view of the observations cited above, Sections 2(g)(4) and
2(g)(6) of the Act of 1961 describes the land reserved for common
purposes under Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 by application
or pro rata cut to the holdings of the land owners within their
ceiling limits as Shamlat Deh under the Act of 1961 and since
these lands have been vested in the Panchayat the action is in
violation of Article 31-A. Since definitions by Section 2(g)(4) and
2(g)(6) are so intermingled that no part can be segregated and
held ultravires and these sections having categorically
transgressed the powers of the State for acquisition of land without
compensation, these provisions can not stand the test of
constitutionality. It is immaterial that the transgression is open,
direct or overt, disguised covert and indirect. It is a piece of
colourable legislation. Violation of Article 31-A is so manifest that
it leaves no manner of doubt. I am of the considered view that
Sections 2(g)(4) and 2(g)(6) are void being violative of Article 31A of the Constitution of India. Writ of mandamus is, therefore,
1 For short, the '1961 Act'
2 Amending Act
3 AIR 1995 P&H 243 (Jai Singh I)
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
issued restraining the State of Haryana from enforcing the
provisions of Sections 2(g)(4) and 2(g)(6) of the Act of 1992."
3. Civil Appeal No. 5480 of 1995 titled as State of Haryana v.
Jai Singh before this Court against the said judgment was accepted on
6.8.1998 and the following order was passed:
"We have made a through search in the judgment under appeal in
order to discover whether any finding was recorded by the High
Court that the land sought to be affected by the legislative measure
under challenge was within the celling limit of each of the
respective proprietors and was in each's personal cultivation, be
it factually or legally. That there is no such finding is conceded to
by the learned counsel for the parties. Unless such finding was
recorded, in clear terms, the legislative measure could not have
been struck down on the anvil of Article 31A of the Constitution.
In this view of the matter, we would rather have a complete
decision from the High Court on the subject and, therefore,
necessarily, have to effect a remand to it; other questions not
being adverted to and leaving those questions to the High Court to
be re-affirmed or otherwise".
As a result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court and remit the matter back to it for re-decision
of the question focussed as also others as indicated above".
4. It is thereafter, the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana4 examined the legality
of sub-section 6 of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. The above-mentioned
appeals are directed against such order and the order dated 08.11.2013
passed by the Full Bench dismissing the review application against the
said order in the case of State of Haryana v. Vir Singh & Ors.5.
5. The impugned provisions of the Amending Act read thus:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requiresxxx
xxx
xxx
(g) shamilat deh" includes
xxx
xxx
xxx
4 2003 SCC Online P&H 409 (For short, 'Jai Singh II')
5 RA -CW No. 350 of 1999 decided on 8.11.2013
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under
Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of
1948), the management and control whereof vest 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."
6. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Bill introduced
on 5.3.1991 containing the above impugned provisions is as follows:
"To make the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 more effective, practical, deterrent and
beneficial to the interests of the Gram Panchayats it is necessary
to amend the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961."
7. Customary Law by Sir W.H. Rattigan (Sixteenth Edition revised
by Dr. Hari Dev Kohli) was first published in the year 1880. It is a
celebrated reference book, which explained the origin of Shamilat law in
Punjab in Chapter X of the book that the land is the true basis of unity in
villages, supplying the ultimate real bond of union between the members
who constitute the aggregate proprietary body generally called the "village
community". It was elaborated as under:-
"That land is the true basis of unity in village groupings, supplying
the ultimate real bond of union between the members who
constitute the aggregate proprietary body generally called the
"village community", is a fact which may be verified by the most
superficial observer of the organization which underlies those
communities in the Punjab. Thus, whatever may be the type to
which a particular village may belong, and to whatever extent
individualistic notions of property may have superseded the earlier
ideas of jointness and common holdings, there will be found still
surviving very distinct evidence of the fact that in its origin the
village association was bound together by the acquisition of a
definite space of land, which, as Sir Henry Maine has so abundantly
demonstrated, began at once to become the basis of its capacity
instead of kinship, ever more and more vaguely conceived. This
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
evidence is to be found in the reservation within the territorial
limits of every village of some portions of the uncultivated waste
for purposes of common pasture, for assemblies of the people,
for the tethering of the village cattle, and for the possible extension
of the village dwellings. Lands so reserved are jealously guarded
as the common property of the original body of settlers who
founded the village or of their descendants, and occasionally also
those who assisted the settlers in clearing the waste and bringing
it under cultivation are recognised as having a share in these
reserved plots. xxxx xxxx and Finally, a modified and consolidated
Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 came in the
statute book which vests the village common land in the Gram
Panchayats without putting any constraints on the rights of the
village folks to use the village common land. It is only the ownership
which is vested in the Gram Panchayats along with its management
and power of alienation and thus superseding the village proprietary
body...."
8. The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 19486 was enacted to provide for compulsory
consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing their
fragmentation. The expression "common purpose" defined under Section
2(bb) to mean "any purpose in relation to any common need, convenience
or benefit of village" was inserted by Punjab Act No. 22 of 1954 with
retrospective effect. The scope of such expression came up for
consideration before the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court
in a judgment reported as Munsha Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab
& Ors.7. It was held that the individual proprietors of the land were not
left with even a single right which may be included among the attributes
of ownership and that it was a case of total expropriation of the rightholders. The Full Bench held that neither the language of the preamble,
nor that of section 18(c) could be extended so as to include within its
ambit wider programme, with a view to bring about social equality by
taking away from individual proprietors their lands and giving them to
non-proprietors, or handing them over to the Panchayat for purposes of
management for any 'common purpose'. The amendment carried out
was thus set aside. It was thereafter, the expression "common purpose"
was amended by Punjab Act No. 27 of 1960. Such amendment was
6 For short, the '1948 Act'7
AIR 1960 P&H 317 (FB)
8 AIR 1961 P&H 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
upheld by the Full Bench of Punjab High Court in a judgment reported
as Kishan Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.8.
9. The correctness of the decision of Full Bench in Kishan Singh
was doubted in view of the judgment reported as Kavalappara
Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala9. The matter
was considered by a larger Full Bench of five judges in a judgment
reported as Jagat Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.10 The
question examined therein was as to whether it was permissible to keep
aside land owned by private individuals for providing income to the Gram
Panchayat. It was held that the 1948 Act was a measure designed to
promote agrarian reforms and therefore, not ultra vires the Constitution.
The judgment in Jagat Singh came up for consideration in Ranjit Singh
v. State of Punjab11 wherein the judgment of the High Court was not
interfered with.
10. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, an argument was raised
before the Division Bench that the proprietor (land owner) was a small
landholder within the meaning of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act, 1953, and that, therefore, no part of his holding could be acquired
without payment of compensation at the market value. The High Court
dismissed the petition. Such judgment came up for consideration before
a Constitution Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Ajit Singh
v. State of Punjab & Anr.13. The Court considered Rule 16(ii) of the
Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules,
194914 to hold that the title vests in the proprietary body, the management
of the land is done on behalf of the proprietary body by the Panchayat
for common needs and purposes and for the benefit of estate or estates
concerned. Hence, the beneficiary of the modification of rights was not
the State.
11. At this stage, it may be noted that a Full Bench of Punjab in a
judgment reported as Jit Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.15,
considered the Punjab Act No. 39 of 1963 amending the 1948 Act. It
was held that reservation of land for income of the Gram Panchayat
9 AIR 1960 SC 1080
10 AIR 1962 P&H 221 (FB)
11 AIR 1965 SC 632
12 ILR (1966) 1 Punjab 828
13 AIR 1967 SC 856
14 1949 Rules
15 AIR 1964 P&H 419 (FB)
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
HARYANA v. JAI SINGH & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
under the 1948 Act and for extension of the abadi of the non-proprietors
including Harijans, for Panchayat Ghar and for manure pits was valid,
as covered by Article 31A(1)(a) of the Constitution. In Bhagat Ram &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.16, the Constitution Bench of this Court
held that reservation of land for the income of panchayat is not
permissible, being hit by second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution.
The question considered in the context of said clause (ii) of Section 2
(bb) was as to whether the reservation of land for income of the
Panchayat was an acquisition of land by the State within the second
proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution. It was held by the majority
judgment that the said provision was hit by the second proviso to Article
31A of the Constitution. The State was accordingly directed to modify
the consolidation scheme and bring it into accord with the majority
judgment. There is no dispute about the said proposition in the present
appeals.
12. In Atma Ram v. State of Punjab17, the constitutionality of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 as amended by Punjab Act
No. 11 of 1955 was in question. The Constitution Bench examined Article
31A. It was held that in Punjab there are very few estates as defined in
Section 3(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in the sense that
one single landowner is seized and possessed of an entire estate which
is equated with a whole village. In Punjab, an estate and a village are
inter-changeable terms, and almost all villages are owned in parcels, as
holdings by co-sharers, most likely, descendants of the holder of a whole
village which came to be divided amongst the co-sharers, as a result of
devolution of interest. This Court also noticed that holdings in Punjab are
vertical divisions of an estate whereas in Eastern India, they represent a
horizontal division. The writ petitions were dismissed holding that the
provisions of Article 31A save the Act from any attack based on the
provisions of Articles 14,19 and 31 of the Constitution.
13. The Five Judges Full Bench in Suraj Bhan & Ors. v.