THE STATE OF HARYANA versus JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF HARYANA versus JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conclusion that lands not earmarked or reserved for specific common purposes under the consolidation scheme (bachat or unutilized land) do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State but remain with proprietors and must be redistributed in proportion to their contributions;...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: The State of Haryana; Respondents: Jai Singh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal After Review (appeal Restored to File Following Allowance of Review Petition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 31 a, Shamilat Deh, Consolidation Scheme, Bachat Land, Doctrine of Stare Decisis, Acquisition and Compensation, Vesting of Land, Amendment to Punjab Village Common Lands (regulation) Act, 1961, Review
Constitutional Law Property Law Land Law Administrative Law Article 31 a Shamilat Deh Consolidation Scheme Bachat Land +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State of Haryana

Appellant

Jai Singh and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal After Review (appeal Restored to File Following Allowance of Review Petition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of sub-clause (6) to s.2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as inserted by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992
  2. 2 Whether lands contributed in consolidation and not earmarked for specific purposes (bachat/surplus land) vest in the Gram Panchayat or State or remain with proprietors
  3. 3 Whether insertion of Clause 2(g)(6) effects acquisition attracting second proviso to Article 31-A and requires compensation at market value

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conclusion that lands not earmarked or reserved for specific common purposes under the consolidation scheme (bachat or unutilized land) do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State but remain with proprietors and must be redistributed in proportion to their contributions; the Court also held that the High Court rightly applied the doctrine of stare decisis to follow a consistent line of High Court decisions and dismissed the State's appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs