Land Contributed For Common Purpose But Remaining Unutilised Must Be Returned To Owners : Supreme Court Dismisses Haryana Govt Appeal

In an important ruling providing relief to Haryana-based landowners, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep.16) held that the 'bachat land' or unutilized land left after utilizing the land earmarked for the common purposes in Panchayats, has to be redistributed amongst the proprietors according to the share in which they had contributed the land belonging to them for common purposes.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan affirmed the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in favor of the landowners-proprietors, stating that unless unutilized/bachat land is specifically reserved for common purposes and their possession is handed over to the Panchayat, it continues to belong to the proprietors.

Upholding the High Court's ruling, which relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1967) 2 SCR 165 endorsing the same principle, the judgment authored by CJI Gavai observed:

“All these decisions had held that the land which remains unutilized after utilizing the land for the common purposes so provided under the consolidation scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat. It was further held that the unutilized land i.e., the bachat land, left after utilizing the land earmarked for the common purposes, has to be redistributed amongst the proprietors according to the share in which they had contributed the land belonging to them for common purposes.”

“We have therefore no hesitation in holding that no error could be noticed in the impugned judgment and final order of the Full Bench of the High Court to the extent that it holds that the lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State.”, the Court added.

Briefly put, during consolidation under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, villagers were required to contribute portions of their holdings to create a pool of land for common purposes like roads, schools, or pastures. In 1992, the Haryana government amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, expanding the definition of shamilat deh to include such contributed land. 'Shamilat deh' refers to land that belongs collectively to the village community rather than to individual proprietors.

Landowners challenged the amendment, arguing it was a backdoor attempt to appropriate unutilized land without compensation.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the Court emphasized that two statutory conditions must be met for use of bachat land by the Panchayat, i.e., the land must be expressly reserved in the consolidation scheme, and possession must be transferred to the Panchayat. Since the disputed bachat land met neither of the conditions, the Court concluded that the ownership remained with the proprietors.

The Court also invoked the doctrine of stare decisis, noting that over a hundred High Court judgments had consistently recognized proprietors' rights over bachat land, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhagat Ram. Disturbing this settled position after decades, it observed, would undermine legal certainty and fairness.

“The Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and final order in the alternative held that, a consistent view has been taken in more than 100 judgments by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and applying the doctrine of stare decisis, such a view cannot be upset.”, the court said.

“The doctrine of stare decisis lays importance on stability and predictability in the legal system and mandates that a view consistently upheld by courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal of the State of Haryana was dismissed.

Earlier, in 2022, the Court had allowed the State's appeal. However, the judgment was recalled in review and the matter was re-heard.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mrs. Anubha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv. Mr. Rishi Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Yash Singhal, Adv. Mr. Hamad Tariq, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Jatin Hooda, Adv. Mr. Tarjit Singh Chhikara, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. N D Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv. Mr. Aniket Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv.