E-Paper
SC overturns 2022 order on Haryana’s community land
The Supreme Court overturned a 2022 ruling, affirming land ownership rights in Haryana, impacting environmental protections for the Aravalli ranges.
In a judgment with major implications for land ownership in Haryana as well as for the sensitive Aravalli ranges, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside its April 2022 ruling that had directed the return of village commons to gram panchayats, dealing a blow to the state government’s efforts to reclaim thousands of acres of land.
The court upheld the correctness of a 2003 full bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had held that unutilised land, not specifically earmarked for common purposes during consolidation, would continue to vest with proprietors rather than the panchayat or the state.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan concluded that the 2022 ruling erred in ignoring binding precedent and constitutional principles.
“We have therefore no hesitation in holding that no error could be noticed in the impugned judgment and final order of the full bench of the high court… lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State,” the court held while dismissing Haryana’s appeal.
The bench traced the roots of the dispute to the landmark Bhagat Ram Vs State of Punjab (1967) decision, where a five-judge constitution bench had drawn a crucial distinction between acquisition of land by the State and modification or extinguishment of private rights. It held that unless possession of land changed hands under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act, management and control would not vest in the panchayat. In other words, land contributed by proprietors during consolidation but not earmarked for common use continued to belong to the contributors.
The court noted that the 2022 ruling, which ordered reclamation of lands sold by proprietors or gram panchayats for monetary gain, did not take into account the constitution bench judgment in Bhagat Ram and thus reached a conclusion contrary to settled law.
The court further underlined the importance of stare decisis -- the doctrine that consistent judicial views must be respected to ensure stability in the law. It pointed out that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in more than 100 judgments, consistently applied Bhagat Ram to hold that so-called bachat land (unutilised portions left after land earmarked for common purposes was carved out) reverted to proprietors. The state itself had earlier accepted this position, challenging only time-bound directions for redistribution of such land.
“Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, such a view cannot be upset, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous,” the bench ruled, affirming the High Court’s full bench decision.
Tuesday’s verdict follows the court’s May 2024 order, when a two-judge bench led by Justice Gavai recalled the April 2022 decision on grounds that it had undermined the Bhagat Ram precedent. The recall order had fixed the matter for re-hearing, while cautioning against ignoring constitutional bench rulings.
The now-overturned 2022 judgment had been welcomed by environmental activists, who saw in it a tool to protect the ecologically sensitive Aravalli hills from illegal construction and mining. Lands categorised as gair mumkin pahar (uncultivable mountain land) and those notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act were meant to be shielded from exploitation. But consolidation processes and pro-rata land pooling had often enabled their sale to outsiders and developers.
How land is classified has had tremendous implication for the Aravalli ranges in Haryana, where unauthorised mining and construction has eaten away at a hill range that served as a significant green belt in northwest India and, apart from bringing biodiversity, shielded the national capital from the desert sands and dust from more arid regions to its west.
The land is of two types -- village commons (classified for environment purposes as Gair Mumkin Pahar, or uncultivable mountain land) and land that is notified under sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, which bars their use for mining and construction.
The categorisation of land under the former facilitated its illegal exploitation; and the categorisation under the latter was supposed to prevent illegalities, but with local governments turning a blind eye, this did not happen.
Tuesday’s ruling may complicate conservation efforts, as it effectively restores ownership rights to proprietors over land not specifically earmarked for common use.
