Karnail Singh vs State of Haryana & Ors. Review Petition (Civil) No.526 of 2023 In

Held: Though this Court in the JUR referred to the Constitution Bench judgments in Ranjit Singh and Ajit Singh, there is not even a whisper about the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram, except in paragraph 11, though it had a direct bearing on the issue in question – Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagat Ram in unequivocal terms held that the management and control does not vest in the Panchayat u/s.23-A of the Consolidation Act till possession has changed u/s.24 of the said Act – It further held that, the rights of the holders are not modified or extinguished till persons have changed possession and entered into the possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme – The specific contention raised by the State that the requirements as contemplated u/ss.23, 24 and 21(2) of the Consolidation Act were already complete and as such, the acquisition had already taken place before the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, was rejected – All these steps are subsequent to the assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act – In the light of these findings of the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, the finding of this Court in the JUR that the vesting in the Panchayat is complete on mere assignment u/s.18(c) of the Consolidation Act is totally contrary to the findings recorded in the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram – It was also held in Bhagat Ram that since the Panchayat would fall within the definition of the word “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, if the acquisition is for the purposes of providing income to the Panchayat, it would defeat the whole object of the second proviso and the Consolidation Officer could easily defeat the object of the second proviso to Article 31-A by reserving for the income of the Panchayat a major portion of the land belonging to a person holding land within the ceiling limit – Except the cursory reference in the JUR, this Court did not even refer to the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram – A judgment of the Constitution Bench would be binding on the Benches of a lesser strength – A bench strength of two Judges could not have ignored the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram – Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram and taking a view totally contrary to it would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order and would undermine its soundness – Further, the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II, which findings were given by relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram, and not showing as to how the findings therein were erroneous in law, would also amount to an error, apparent on the face of the record – Furthermore, the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II, that on account of more than 100 decisions rendered by various Benches of the High Court, the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable, would also be an error apparent on the face of the record – Judgment and order of this Court dated 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to file. [Paras 54-58, 46, 65, 67, 69]

Review Jurisdiction – Scope:

Held: Scope of review by this Court is very limited – Review would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made out – Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case – The review of the judgment would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice – Such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. [Paras 12, 13]