Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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