'Ignoring Precedent A Material Error' : Supreme Court Recalls Its 2022 Verdict For Not Considering Constitution Bench Judgment

The Supreme Court on May 16 recalled an earlier judgment passed it in 2022 after noting that a precedent laid down by the Constitution Bench was not applied in it.

Reiterating the position of law laid down by the Five Judge Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others (AIR 1967 SC 927), the Court observed that if there exists a surplus land after providing the land to the panchayat for the use of common purposes, then such land would have to be vested with the proprietor and not the state government or panchayat.

Allowing the review of its earlier judgment passed in 2022 (to be referred to as 'JUR'), the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta noted the impugned judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record as it didn't consider the law laid down in the constitution bench judgment of Bhagat Ram.

"Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order. Ignoring the judgment of the Constitution Bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness," the Court observed while recalled the judgment in review.

In Bhagat Ram, the Supreme Court opined that if the surplus land, being left land out after the land was utilized for the panchayat's common purposes, is vested with the state government (with an explanation that the land may be used to earn income for the panchayat) then the same would be nothing but compulsory acquisition of land within the ceiling limit of an individual without payment of compensation and would offend the second proviso to Article 31- A of the Constitution of India.

The Court in Bhagat Ram held that the surplus land has to be vested with the concerned proprietor and not the state government to earn income for the panchayat.

Moreover, the court in Bhagat Ram clarified that until possession has changed under Section 24 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (“Act”), the management and control does not vest in the Panchayat under Section 23-A of the Consolidation Act. This essentially means that unless the possession of the surplus land is shifted to the panchayat, the management and control of the surplus wouldn't be vested with the panchayat.

In JUR, the Court held against the ratio laid down in Bhagat Ram by stating that once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution amongst the proprietors. The court opined that the land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use.

Finding a clear departure from the observations stated in Bhagat Ram, the Court noted that ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram and taking a view contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.

Thus, the Court allowed the review petition and recalled the Judgment passed in JUR.

The appeal is directed to be listed for hearing peremptorily on 7th August 2024 at Serial No.1.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Narender Hooda,Sr.Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Rahul Rathore,Adv. Mr. Akshay Kjindal,Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar,Adv. Mr. Shaurya Lamba,Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Chander Kiran, Adv. Mr. Rahul Govil, Adv. Mr. Varun Shobit, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Beena, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Ms. Anubha Agrawal, AOR Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Verma, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Adv. Mr. Sanchya Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Rajiv, Adv. Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. D K Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashdeep, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv. Mr. Piyush Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhanot, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rana, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Vats, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. Ms. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harsh Saxena, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Ms. Akansha Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivika Nehra, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Srishti Singla, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR

Case Title: KARNAIL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 386
Click here to read/download the Judgment