Even a Trespasser in Settled Possession Cannot Be Dispossessed Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes in Family Property Dispute Taxation Law | Issuance of Notices Without Application of Mind Violates Fundamental Principles: PH High Court Quashes Notices A Soldier Cannot Be Denied Disability Pension Just Because It Was Below 20%: Supreme Court Grants Full Benefits to Army Veteran Invalided Out for Seizure Disorder State Cannot Let Bureaucratic Delay Decide a Judge’s Seniority: Supreme Court Grants Retrospective Seniority to Civil Judges Selected in 2003 Prosecution Cannot Hijack Court’s Power to Frame Charges Under Section 216 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Alteration of Charges in Double Murder Trial Primacy of Judiciary, Not Executive Discretion, Must Guide Prosecutor Appointments: Kerala High Court Declares District Judge’s Role Paramount Under BNSS Civil Wrongs Cannot Be Criminalized: Domain Dispute Not Forgery or Cheating: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Chancellor of Alliance University Conversations, Not Conspiracies - CDRs and Mere Conversations Cannot Prove Criminal Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Quashes CBI Case Against Prakash Industries CMD and Others Law Protects Against Real Cruelty, Not Every Family Argument — Police Machinery Isn’t a Weapon for Personal Vengeance: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR A Party Cannot Blow Hot and Cold – Once a Landlord Supports Tenancy Claim, Their Successors Cannot Turn Around: Gujarat High Court Upholds Tenant Rights Despite Revenue Tribunal’s Reversal Specific Performance Is a Discretion, Not a Right: Telangana High Court Trashes Fabricated Sale Agreement, Overturns Trial Court Decree State Cannot Seize Property Without Proving Owner Died Heirless: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Escheat Proceedings for Procedural Lapses Reasonableness of Business Expenditure Must Be Judged From the Businessman’s Perspective, Not the Revenue’s: Bombay High Court Dismisses Assessee’s Appeal in Infrastructure Fee Dispute Delay in Filing Does Not Invalidate a Will—Right to Probate is Continuous: Calcutta High Court Upholds Probate Despite 19-Year Delay Registration Alone Is No Guarantee of a Valid Will”: Delhi High Court Refuses Probate for Failure to Prove Attestation

Supreme Court Revisits Vesting of Common Lands: 'Management and Control Do Not Vest in Panchayat Until Possession Changes' - Review Petition Allowed"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

On 16 May 2024, Supreme Court has allowed a review petition challenging its judgment dated 7th April 2022, which concerned the vesting and management of lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation scheme. The Court acknowledged an oversight in failing to consider binding precedents and consistent High Court rulings.

The review petition was filed by Karnail Singh, contesting the Supreme Court's previous decision that overturned a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The core issue revolved around the interpretation and applicability of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, specifically related to lands reserved for common purposes under consolidation schemes.

The petitioner argued that the judgment contravened Constitution Bench judgments in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh.

The Court emphasized the limited scope of review jurisdiction, permitting reviews only for apparent mistakes or errors on record.

"Review is not equivalent to the original hearing and is not maintainable for repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes." [Paras 12-14]

The Court revisited key precedents in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh, underscoring that management and control of common lands do not vest in the Panchayat until possession changes under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act.

"Till possession has changed under Section 24, the management and control do not vest in the Panchayat under Section 23-A." [Paras 22-58]

The Supreme Court noted that the Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II consistently held that unutilized land remains vested with the proprietors.

"Ignoring consistent High Court rulings and the doctrine of stare decisis undermines legal stability and the soundness of the original judgment." [Paras 59-67]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalling the judgment and order dated 7th April 2022.

The appeal has been restored and is scheduled for a peremptory hearing on 7th August 2024.

Date of Decision: 16th May 2024

Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Latest News

  • by sayum
    26 April 2025 7:19 AM
State Cannot Let Bureaucratic Delay Decide a Judge’s Seniority: Supreme Court Grants Retrospective Seniority to Civil Judges Selected in 2003
  • by sayum
    26 April 2025 7:19 AM
A Soldier Cannot Be Denied Disability Pension Just Because It Was Below 20%: Supreme Court Grants Full Benefits to Army Veteran Invalided Out for Seizure Disorder
  • by sayum
    25 April 2025 2:23 PM
Set-Off Under Section 428 CrPC Applies Only to Custody in the Same Case in Which Conviction Is Recorded: Supreme Court Refers Conflicting Precedents for Authoritative Interpretation
  • by sayum
    25 April 2025 2:23 PM
Membership in Waqf Board Ends with Bar Council Tenure: Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 14 Wakf Act to Muslim Advocates
  • by sayum
    25 April 2025 10:24 AM
Justice Delayed Cannot Become Persecution Prolonged: Supreme Court Bars Fresh Disciplinary Action Against Police Officer 40 Years After 1984 Delhi Riots