No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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 Legal News