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

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 07-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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

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