FACTS
The present case is a review petition filed by the petitioner (Karnail Singh and other landowners) against the defendant (State of Haryana) challenging the previous judgement of the court that was passed on 7th April 2022 in Civil Appeal No 6990 of 2014.
Haryana Government through a gazette notification in February 1992, added a sub clause 6 in the section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The aforesaid section states that Shamilat Deh includes lands reserved for the common purpose of a village.
The landholders in the present case contributing a portion of their land holdings for creating a common pool of land known as Shamilat Deh which was solely to be used for the common purpose of the village residents. Owing to this fact, the landowners filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The Full Bench of the High Court in the present case declared various provisions of the case as unconstitutional and erroneous. The reasoning given by the court while declaring it unconstitutional was that if the land is not put in to use, then in that scenario the land cannot be divided among owners. The High Court further held that the amendment to the act is exclusively an elucidation of the provision rather than a modification.
The State of Haryana being disappointed with the decision of the High Court, appealed in the Supreme Court, wherein Supreme Court in 2022, reconsidered the issue to examined under the purview of Article 31A of the Indian Constitution. It overturned the High Court’s decision by stating that amendment should be viewed as a modification.
Thereafter the petitioners, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court to seek a review in the matter. Then it was in the year, January 2023 listed the case for review.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE
- Whether the review petition filed by the petitioner is admissible in the court or not?
- Whether the decision taken by the court in the original appeal filed by the State of Haryana was valid or not?
- The justification and the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in the Original appeal was sufficient?
CONTENTIONS
Petitioner’s Contention
Counsel of petitioner argued that decision of the original appeal is contrary to the laws laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab among various others.
The counsel quoted the case Ajit Singh, wherein the title of lands for common purpose such as khals, paths, khurrahs, panchayat ghars and schools etc. under the Rules 16 (ii) of Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 is the Proprietary Body who continues to be the owner of the lands.
It contended that as per the decision of High Court, the rights of the petitioners were solidified whereas, in the Supreme Court the same were adversely affected due to the fact that they were not heard.
Respondent’s Contention
Counsel for the State of Haryana contended that this review petition is not maintainable and the scope of the review is very limited. It argued that the Judgement of the appeal filed in the Supreme Court was delivered only after listening the arguments of both the counsels.
Additionally, it argued that when a case is already decided, then in that case, a party should not be allowed to reopen the case under the disguise of review petition.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court in this case held that review petition filed by the petitioner is valid and maintainable and the original appeal is to be recalled.
Supreme Court while addressing the issue that whether the review petition is maintainable or not quoted Kamlesh Verma V. Mayawati. It suggested various grounds on which review is maintainable which includes discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error mistake on the face of record or any other sufficient reason. The aforementioned case even suggests the ground on which a review will not be maintainable which includes repetition of old or overturned argument, minor mistake of less importance, until there is a material error among various other grounds.
Further, this court quoted Ajit Singh V. State of Punjab wherein this court carved out 4 categories covered by Article 31 of the Indian Constitution which includes acquisition by state of an estate, acquisition by the state of rights in an estate, the extinguishment of rights in an estate, and lastly, the modifications of right in an estate. Constitution Bench held in this aforementioned case that as per the first two categories there is either a transference of an estate or rights in an estate to the state. The court in these categories interpreted that the rights of the holder of these lands have been extinguished. In furtherance to it, the extinguishment of rights would mean the transference of all rights in an estate to the state.
In the present case, Supreme Court while further mentioning the Ajit Singh Case held Rule 16(ii) of the Consolidation Rules, highlighted the fact that the propriety body retains the title of the owner of the land and the land is utilized for common good of all. Each proprietor’s portion of land was taken and thereafter converted into a common pool so that entire area could be used for the benefit of the estate. In this case, it was also held that the land concerned would not be put into use for any other purpose other than stated.
Court held that Bhagat Ram V. State of Punjab is one of the most relevant cases in context to the present case. While delivering judgement it observed, “We find that 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 statement mentioned makes the review petition very much admissible in the eyes of law in the context of the case Kamlesh Verma V. Mayawati.
In the case of Bhagat Ram, court observed that the Panchayat falls very much within the definition of the state as per the constitution and if the acquisition of the land if done for the purpose for providing income to the panchayat, then it would defeat the object of the second proviso of Article 31A of the Indian Constitution. In the case, there was a total contrary position as compared to original appeal by the State of Haryana. The court in Bhagat Ram held that the rights of the holders of land are not modified or extinguished till the possession of the land have been changed under the scheme.
The court observed while delivering the judgement of the original appeal, the court should have considered the reasoning that was given by the full bench of High Court in Jai Singh II and in the consideration of the reasoning would have led this court to notice that the reasoning given in the original appeal was erroneous and unjustifiable.
DEFECTS IN THE LAW
In the case, Karnail Singh V. State of Haryana, one of the major law around which the case involves is Amendment which led to the inclusion of sub-clause 6 in section 2(g)of Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. There exists a few defects in the amendment made to this law, some of which includes:
- The term used in the law is ambiguous to an extent. The law includes various terms like ‘abadi deh’ is nor precisely explained which opens the law to various interpretations.
- The law defines the term ‘Shamilat Deh’ which means the common land of the village, however the law has not clearly explained the position of lands owned by a family or a group of people, that whether such a land is a part of Shamilat Deh or not.
- The law did not clearly explain the situation of lands which were not put for the common purpose or was used to extract the revenue for the Gram Panchayat. However, this was later explained by the court in various case laws.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court in this case has attempted to provide a definition of ‘Shamilat Deh’ as per Section 2(g) sub-clause 6 of Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 also tries to identify the common lands of the villages and also tries to identify what excludes the common lands of the village i.e. the lands that are not qualified to be defined as Shamilat Deh.
The judgment has ensured that the lands acquired by the state are used for the right purpose i.e. for the benefit of all rather than for a misuse like extraction of income for the Panchayats.
It even highlighted the when that rights of a land holder or proprietary holder gets modifies or when does it gets extinguished in regards to the transference of the land to the state.
The interpretation of the court in this case was to guarantee a free and fair allocation and utilization of all the common lands in village for the benefit of all. It specified that the land should be serving the needs of masses rather than a few handful individuals.