Supreme Court holds surplus "bachat" land reverts to proprietors; upholds High Court view and dismisses State's appeal

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal by the State of Haryana challenging a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that interpreted amendments to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992). The appeals raised the question whether lands contributed on consolidation but not earmarked or put to common use (so-called bachat or surplus lands) vested with the State/Gram Panchayat under the amended definition of “shamilat deh,” or whether they reverted to the original proprietors.

The Court dismissed the State’s appeal and sustained the High Court’s conclusion that unutilized bachat land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat or State. The judgment applied and followed earlier Constitution Bench authority (notably Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram and related decisions) and the High Court’s long line of precedents, holding that land “reserved for common purposes under the scheme” alone attracted protection under Article 31‑A while surplus land had to be redistributed to proprietors. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also recorded that “the lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State.”

Background

The dispute arose after Haryana inserted sub‑clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, with an Explanation treating various record entries (e.g., “Jumla Malkan” / “Mushtarka Malkan”) as shamilat deh. Proprietors who had contributed land to consolidation proceedings challenged the amendment as effecting compulsory deprivation without compensation. A Full Bench of the High Court partly allowed writ petitions and held surplus bachat land did not vest with the Panchayat. This Court earlier allowed a State appeal in 1998 for reconsideration under Article 31‑A, then in 2022 briefly allowed the State before that order was reviewed and recalled on a review petition allowed in May 2024; the appeal was restored and listed for fresh hearing. On re‑hearing, the Supreme Court reviewed the line of authority including Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram, analysed Sections 18, 21, 23‑A and 24 of the Consolidation Act, and agreed with the High Court that management and control under Section 23‑A did not vest until possession under Section 24 had changed; hence bachat land not earmarked for common purposes continued to belong to proprietors. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis, noting the High Court’s consistent approach across many decisions, and found no merit in the State’s challenge. The appeal was dismissed and there was no order as to costs; pending applications stood disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 (2025 INSC 1122) Case Title: The State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Vinay Navare, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Manoj Swarup, Shri Narender Hooda, Shri Rameshwar Singh Malik, Senior Counsel