Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Binding precedent; Review

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Ignoring Constitution Bench precedent as manifest error: The reported Supreme Court judgment holds that failure by a smaller bench to follow a binding Constitution Bench ruling can itself amount to a material error apparent on the face of the order and justify review.

Material facts and background

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 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, 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

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.

“Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.”

Appellant / assessee submissions

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 nonproprietors 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

“4. It is clear from this affidavit that possession has not been transferred in pursuance of the repartition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on this fact and says that in view of Section 23-A and Section 24 the “acquisition” does not take place till all the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession of the holdings. Sections 23-A and 24 read as follows: “23-A. As soon as a scheme comes into force, the management and control of all lands assigned or reserved for common purposes of the village under Section 18, shall vest in the Panchayat of that village which shall also be entitled to appropriate the income accruing therefrom for the benefit of the village community, and the rights and interest of the owners of such lands shall stand modified and extinguished accordingly. 24. (1) As soon as the persons entitled to possession of holdings under this Act have entered into possession of the holdings respectively allotted to them, the scheme shall be deemed to have come into force and the possession of the allottees affected by the scheme of consolidation, or, as the case may be, by repartition, shall remain

Revenue / respondent submissions

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.

unessential. It is the substance that we must seek.” 10. Let us now see whether the other part of the second proviso throws any light on this question. It would be noticed that it refers to ceiling limits. It is well known that under various laws dealing with land reforms, no person apart from certain exceptions can hold land beyond a ceiling fixed under the law. Secondly, the proviso says that not only the land exempted from acquisition should be within the ceiling limit but it also must be under personal cultivation. The underlying idea of this proviso seems to be that a person who is cultivating land personally, which is his source of livelihood, should not be deprived of that land under any law protected by Article 31-A unless at least compensation at the market rate is given. In various States most of the persons have already been deprived of land beyond the ceiling limit on compensation which was less than the market value. It seems to us that in the light of all the considerations mentioned above the words “acquisition by the State” in the second proviso do not have a technical meaning, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. If the State has in substance...

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

would not like 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:

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.

the rights in the land for its own purposes, even if the title remains with the owner, it cannot be said that it is not acquisition within the second proviso to Article 31-A. 11. But the question still remains whether even if a wider meaning is given to the word “acquisition” what has been done by the scheme and the Act is acquisition or not within the meaning of the second proviso. In other words, does the scheme only modify rights or does it amount to acquisition of land? The scheme is not part of the record, but it appears that 89B-18B11B (Pukhta) of land was owned by the Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation, which was used for common purposes. Some further area was reserved for common purposes as khals, paths, khurrahs, panchayat ghars and schools etc. after applying cut upon the rightholders on pro-rata basis. It does not appear that any land, apart from what was already owned by the Panchayat, was reserved for providing income to the Panchayat. Therefore, in this case we are not concerned with the validity of acquisition for such a purpose.”

28. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would reveal that in paragraph 6, this Court reproduced the provisions of Article 31A, as amended. 29. In paragraph 7, this Court carved out 4 categories covered by Article 31-A as under: (i)

The Panchayat will manage it on behalf of the proprietors and use it for common purposes; it cannot use it for any other purpose. The proprietors enjoy the benefits derived from the use of land for common purposes. It is true that the nonproprietors also derive benefit but their satisfaction and advancement enures in the end to the advantage of the proprietors in the form of a more efficient agricultural community. The Panchayat as such does not enjoy any benefit. On the facts of this case it seems to us that the beneficiary of the modification of rights is not the State, and therefore there is no acquisition by the State within the second proviso. 15. In the context of the 2nd proviso, which is trying to preserve the rights of a person holding land under his personal cultivation, it is impossible to conceive that such adjustment of the rights of persons holding land under their personal cultivation in the interest of village economy was regarded as something to be compensated for in cash.” 36. In paragraph 12, after reproducing Rule 16(ii) of the Consolidation Rules, this Court observed that the title still vests

satisfaction and advancement enures in the end to the advantage of the proprietors in the form of a more efficient agricultural community. The Panchayat as such does not enjoy any benefit. This Court held, in light of the facts of the said case, that the beneficiary of the modification of rights was not the State, and therefore there was no acquisition by the State within the meaning of the second proviso. 38. In paragraph 15, this Court, referring to second proviso, held that it is impossible to conceive that such adjustment of the rights of persons holding land under their personal cultivation in the interest of village economy was regarded as something to be compensated for in cash. 39. It can thus be seen that in Ajit Singh, this Court was considering the portion of lands which was taken from the proprietors; formed into a common pool and used for common needs and benefits of the estate or estates concerned. It was held that the said land could not be used for any other purpose. It

Operative decision and relief

The judgment and order of this Court dated 7th April 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to file.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Court in the case of Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab
• Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others3
• Singh vs. State of Punjab & another4 (hereinafter referred to
• Singh & others vs. State of Haryana5 (hereinafter referred to
• State of Punjab vs. Gurjant Singh and others (CA Nos.5709-5714 of 2001
• Sow Chandra Kante and another vs. Sheikh Habib7
• Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others8
• Board vs. Hitech
• Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others10
• Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores
• Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State
• This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (supra)

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Ignoring Constitution Bench precedent as manifest error. The operative result is classified as Remanded Or Restored. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Ignoring Constitution Bench precedent as manifest error. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF

Related Finin2min guidance