Supreme Court Holds Landowners’ Rights over Bachat Lands
Case Name: The State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Full Bench)
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, which broadened the scope of “shamilat deh” (village common lands). It was clarified that all lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation scheme—whether actually used or not—vest with the Gram Panchayat and cannot be repartitioned among the original landowners.
However, the Court drew a distinction for surplus or bachat lands. Such lands, not earmarked or reserved for common purposes under the scheme, were held not to vest in the Gram Panchayat. Instead, they must revert to the original proprietors who had contributed them during consolidation.
Summary: The controversy centered around the interpretation of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The amendment clarified that all lands earmarked for village common purposes vest in the Gram Panchayat.
Landowners contested this, arguing that lands which remained unutilized for common purposes should rightfully remain with them. They further claimed that treating such lands as Panchayat property amounted to unconstitutional compulsory acquisition without compensation.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of precedent, particularly Constitution Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, and Bhagat Ram. Consistently, these decisions held that only lands explicitly reserved for common purposes under the consolidation scheme vest in the Gram Panchayat, while surplus (bachat) lands remain the property of the original contributors.
The Court also emphasized the principle of stare decisis, noting that this position had been uniformly applied in over a hundred decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Supreme Court itself.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal, affirming the High Court’s ruling that bachat lands do not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Instead, such lands must be redistributed among the proprietors who originally contributed them, in proportion to their respective shares. Directions were issued to ensure proper redistribution in line with this principle.