KARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 16-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 – Sub-
clause (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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.