Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High 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.

Similar News