The State of Haryana vs Jai Singh and Others

(6) to s.2(g) of the 1961 Act along with an Explanation to the said sub-clause – In the said sub-clause, it was laid down that lands reserved for the common purposes of a village u/s.18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat u/s.23-A of the aforesaid Act – Aggrieved by the aforementioned amendment, the respondent-landowners who held land in various villages and had contributed a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land called ‘shamilat deh’, which was meant exclusively for the common purposes of the village inhabitants, filed Writ Petitions before the High Court – After various rounds of litigation, a Full Bench of the High Court by way of the impugned judgment and final order, examined the legality of sub-clause (6) of s.2(g) of the 1961 Act as inserted by the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 and partly allowed the writ petitions preferred by the respondent-landowners – Appellant-State filed appeal against the same before the Supreme Court – Vide judgment and order dated 07.04.2022, this Court allowed the civil appeal – Review petition filed – Allowed – The 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 the file: Held: No error in the impugned judgment and final order of the Full Bench of the High Court to the extent that it holds that the lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State – It is settled that the land which remains unutilized after utilizing the land for the common purposes so provided under the consolidation scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat – The unutilized land i.e., the bachat land, left after utilizing the land earmarked for the common purposes, has to be redistributed amongst the proprietors according to the share in which they had contributed the land belonging to them for common purposes – The Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and final order in the alternative held that, a consistent view has been taken in more than 100 judgments by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and applying the doctrine of stare decisis, such a view cannot be upset – The doctrine of stare decisis lays importance on stability and predictability in the legal system and mandates that a view consistently upheld by courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous – No error in the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in applying the doctrine of stare decisis to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it followed the law which was consistently applied in more than

100 judgments. [Paras 53, 56, 59, 62]