IBC Moratorium Under Part III Does Not Shield Directors From Personal Criminal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases U/S 138 NI: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act Is Predominantly Criminal; IBC Moratorium Stays Recovery Of Compensation But Not Prosecution: Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge Bench Bus Driver Not Negligent If Vehicle Moved Based On Conductor's Whistle; Not Expected To Look Back For Alighting Passengers: Supreme Court Compassionate Assistance Received By Widow Cannot Be Deducted To Negate Compensation Payable To Dependent Mother Ineligible For Such Benefit: Supreme Court Section 37 Jurisdiction Is A Narrowing Pyramid; Courts Should Not Reopen Settled Jurisdictional Issues: Supreme Court Arbitration Award Passed Without Court Leave During Pendency Of Suit Is Unenforceable Under 1940 Act: Supreme Court Notice In Mutation Proceedings Constitutes Constructive Notice Of Probate; Revocation Plea Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court Breach Of Position Limits Is A Regulatory Infraction, Not Automatic Market Fraud; Supreme Court Sets Aside Reliance RPL Disgorgement Order Mere Breach Of Position Limits Not 'Fraud' Under PFUTP Regulations Unless Manipulation Or Inducement Is Proven: Supreme Court SC Awards ₹11 Lakh Compensation To Convict For 24-Day Delay In Release; Says State Must 'Obey First, Appeal Later' Compensation For Village Fazalwas Land Acquisition No Longer Res Integra; Supreme Court Dismisses Enhancement Claim Citing Previous Precedent Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks Cannot Form Basis To Terminate Probationer; Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Employer Cannot Use 'Unsatisfactory Performance' As Guise To Bypass Disciplinary Inquiry For Misconduct: Supreme Court Statutory Body Cannot Act As Both Investigator And Judge; Adjudicatory Process Must Be Neutrally Conducted: Supreme Court Removal Of Mathadhipati Vitiated If Relied-Upon Documents Not Supplied; Service By Affixation On Seized Premises Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Serving Notice By Affixing It To Door Of Premises Already Seized By State Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Initiating Criminal Case After Final Settlement Of Loan Account Is An Abuse Of Process; Sanctity Of OTS Must Be Protected: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 420 & 471 IPC Cannot Continue After Bank Loan Settlement Approved By DRT: Supreme Court RTE Act: Use Of 'Teacher' In Section 23 Shows Intent To Make TET Mandatory For In-Service Staff, Not Retrospective: Supreme Court Service Of Teachers Cannot Come At Cost Of Educational Future Of Children: Supreme Court Extends TET Deadline To 2028 Right To Know Biological Father Prevails Over Right To Privacy; DNA Test Can Be Ordered To Resolve Paternity: Supreme Court DNA | Child’s Right To Identity & Closure Outweighs Putative Father’s Right To Privacy In Paternity Disputes: Supreme Court Approver’s Testimony Doesn’t Require Corroboration Of Every Material Circumstance; Rule Of Prudence Requires Only Connecting Link To Accused: Supreme Court Conspirator Liable For All 'Reasonably Foreseeable' Crimes Committed By Others In Furtherance Of Conspiracy: Supreme Court Rent Enhancement Orders Under UP Rent Act Must Apply Retrospectively From Date Of Filing Application: Supreme Court High Court Can’t Enhance Rent Under Article 227 Based On Mere Statements Without Evidence; Power To Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court Parrot Testimony | Verbatim Repetition Of Allegations In Child's Statement Indicates Tutoring; POCSO Complaint Filed As 'Counter-Blast' Liable To Be Quashed: Supreme Court Matrimonial Disputes Often Witness Vague POCSO Allegations To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband & In-Laws

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