State Cannot Seize Unutilized Land Without Compensation Merely by Labeling It 'Common Land': Supreme Court Upholds Proprietors’ Rights Over Bachat Lands

“Only Lands Reserved and Utilized for Common Purposes Can Vest in the Panchayat” –  Supreme Court of India  dismissed the State’s appeal against the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had struck down portions of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The law had sought to include within the definition of 'shamilat deh' (village common lands) those lands that were left unutilized (bachat land) during consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that only those lands specifically earmarked in the consolidation scheme for common purposes can vest with the Gram Panchayat. Lands that were contributed on a pro-rata basis by proprietors but never assigned or used for public purposes must revert back to them, else it would amount to unconstitutional acquisition without compensation, offending Article 31-A and Article 300-A of the Constitution.

“You Can’t Just Call It Common Land and Take It” – Court Declares that Mere Reservation on Paper Is Not Sufficient for State Vesting

The Supreme Court delivered a scathing critique of Haryana’s legislative move that attempted to retrospectively label unutilized, unassigned lands as ‘shamilat deh’.

It observed: “Reservation of land solely for Panchayat income purposes without compensation violates the second proviso to Article 31-A… unless land was actually earmarked for common purpose and possession transferred, vesting in Panchayat does not occur.”

The Court ruled that landowners' property rights survive unless the land is specifically reserved and used for public functions like roads, cremation grounds, schools, etc. The attempt to vest lands merely because they were recorded under generic terms like “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” was deemed legally unsustainable.

“Legal Fiction Cannot Override Legal Rights” – Court Calls Out Haryana’s Attempt at Backdoor Acquisition

The 1992 Amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as enacted by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, introduced Section 2(g)(6) with an Explanation that swept within its net all lands marked in ownership records as common or shared ownership—even when not used for public benefit.

The Court firmly held: “Lands contributed by proprietors on pro-rata basis but not earmarked for any common purpose under the consolidation scheme are bachat lands and cannot be vested in the State or Gram Panchayat without violating the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A.”

“Compensation Is Not Optional When the Beneficiary Is the State” – Supreme Court Reapplies Bhagat Ram and Ajit Singh Precedents

In a detailed analysis, the Court revisited three seminal Constitution Bench judgments:

• Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1967): Clarified that where land is not used for genuine village welfare but is acquired for State income or control, compensation is mandatory under Article 31-A.

• Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (1967): Declared that reservation of land solely for Panchayat income is a form of State acquisition requiring compensation. The Court reiterated:

“The Panchayat falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12… reservation for its income is acquisition by the State within the meaning of Article 31-A.”

• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1965): Though cited, was found inapplicable as it did not account for the second proviso to Article 31-A, inserted by the 17th Constitutional Amendment in 1964.

The Bench concluded: “If the State has in substance acquired all the rights in the land for its own purposes—even if title remains with the owner—it must be treated as acquisition within Article 31-A.”

“Possession Is Nine-Tenths of Ownership—State Cannot Displace Settled Cultivation Without Justification”

The respondents argued, and the Court agreed, that most bachat lands had remained with the original proprietors for decades, were under cultivation, and in many cases were transferred through sale deeds, partitioned, or developed.

The Court found these facts critical: “It is submitted that these persons have invested labour, capital and generations of time on the footing that their possession was lawful and secure… disturbing such long-settled rights would be manifestly unjust.”

Hence, unless actual use for public purposes was demonstrated, or possession transferred to the Panchayat, the State could not assert ownership, regardless of what records showed.

“One Hundred Consistent Judgments Cannot Be Overturned Without Grave Error” – Supreme Court Applies Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The Court placed great emphasis on judicial consistency and the principle of legal certainty. It noted: “A consistent view has been taken in more than 100 judgments by the Punjab and Haryana High Court… such a view cannot be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous.”

It approved the Full Bench’s reliance on its own prior judgment in Gurjant Singh, which upheld that unutilized bachat land must revert to proprietors.

It concluded:

“We find no error in the High Court applying the doctrine of stare decisis… Long-standing interpretation of property rights under consolidation law cannot be discarded on legislative whim.”

Haryana’s Appeal Dismissed, Proprietors’ Rights Upheld

The Supreme Court categorically dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, upholding the High Court’s judgment that:

“Lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State.”

The Court also clarified that the mere inclusion of land under common ownership terms in revenue records is not enough—actual assignment for common use and transfer of possession are essential prerequisites for State vesting.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2025