A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decision in the Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014, in which it interpreted provisions under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The key contention was whether vesting in the Panchayat under Section 18(c) of the Consolidation Act becomes complete on mere assignment, ignoring the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab. The court held that ignoring a binding Constitution Bench judgment constitutes a manifest error, undermining the decision’s soundness. It recalled its 2022 judgment and restored the appeal for reconsideration, reaffirming the importance of adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis.

Keywords:

Review Jurisdiction, Manifest Error, Doctrine of Stare Decisis, Panchayat Lands, Common Pool.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i. Judgement Cause Title:
  Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

• ii. Case Number:
  Review Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014.

• iii. Judgement Date:
  16 May 2024.

• iv. Court:
  Supreme Court of India.

• v. Quorum:
  Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

• vi. Author:
  Justice B.R. Gavai.

• vii. Citation:
  [2024] 6 S.C.R. 894, [2024 INSC 424].

• viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 18(c), 23-A, 24.
  • Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 2(g)(6).
  • Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.

• ix. Judgments Overruled:
  Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014.

• x. Related Law Subjects:
  Constitutional Law, Property Law, Land Reforms.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The controversy originated from an amendment to the Haryana Village Common Lands Act, which sought to include lands reserved for common purposes under “shamilat deh.” The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that lands reserved but not earmarked for common purposes cannot be deemed to vest in Panchayats. On appeal, the Supreme Court initially upheld the Haryana Act. However, a review was sought on grounds that the judgment ignored binding precedents, particularly the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab. This case focused on whether review jurisdiction could be invoked when a judgment overlooks binding precedents.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 1992, Haryana amended the Village Common Lands Act, defining “shamilat deh” to include lands reserved for common purposes under the Consolidation Act.
2. Landowners challenged this, asserting their rights to lands not utilized for common purposes during consolidation.
3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the landowners, emphasizing that such lands vest in proprietors unless explicitly earmarked for common purposes.
4. The Supreme Court reversed this ruling in its 2022 judgment, leading to the present review petition.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does ignoring a Constitution Bench precedent constitute a manifest error?
2. Can lands reserved but not utilized for common purposes vest in the Panchayat under Section 18(c) of the Consolidation Act?
3. What is the scope of review jurisdiction in the Supreme Court?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Constitution Bench Precedents Ignored:
   The judgment under review failed to consider Bhagat Ram, which held that management and control of land under Section 23-A do not vest in the Panchayat until possession is changed under Section 24.

2. Doctrine of Stare Decisis Violated:
   Reliance on contradictory judgments undermined judicial consistency and created ambiguity in land rights.

3. Impact on Proprietary Rights:
   The ruling adversely affected proprietary rights, including thousands of transactions based on existing legal precedents.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Review Not Maintainable:
   The respondent argued that review cannot re-examine issues already deliberated upon.

2. Scope of Review Limited:
   Reliance was placed on Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, asserting that review jurisdiction applies only to errors apparent on the face of the record.

3. Public Interest Over Individual Rights:
   The amendments were necessary for the equitable distribution of common land resources, which should not be impeded by technicalities.

H) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that ignoring binding precedents constitutes a manifest error undermining the judicial process. The judgment under review misinterpreted statutory provisions and failed to address the doctrine of stare decisis.

b. OBITER DICTA

The court emphasized the importance of precedential adherence to maintain consistency in judicial decisions, particularly when dealing with property rights affecting numerous stakeholders.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Precedential Adherence: Lower benches must adhere to Constitution Bench judgments without deviation.
2. Dynamic Interpretation of Common Purpose: Reserved lands must serve evolving community needs and cannot be arbitrarily re-vested in proprietors.
3. Review Jurisdiction: Review is permissible only for manifest errors that result in miscarriage of justice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring legal consistency and safeguarding property rights. The reinstatement of the appeal underscores the court’s responsibility to rectify judgments ignoring binding precedents.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 SCR 165.
2. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] 1 SCR 82.
3. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 SCR 143.
4. Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320.

Important Statutes Referred

1. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
2. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
3. Constitution of India, Article 31-A.