Bachat land is not “shamilat deh”: Supreme Court reaffirms proprietors’ title; vesting follows reservation in the consolidation scheme (not mere revenue entries) and the doctrine of stare decisis applies

Case: The State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Others, 2025 INSC 1122 (Supreme Court of India, 16 September 2025)

Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI; Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.; K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Introduction

This decision settles a long-running controversy at the intersection of consolidation law and village commons in Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The core dispute concerned whether all lands recorded in revenue papers as “Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad” (and similar entries) automatically became shamilat deh (village common land) vesting in the Gram Panchayat by virtue of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, which amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), by inserting Section 2(g)(6) with an Explanation.

The respondents—village proprietors/landowners—had contributed portions of their holdings during consolidation (under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948) through a pro-rata cut. Some of that land was specifically reserved in the consolidation scheme for “common purposes” (paths, schools, cremation grounds, etc.), while another portion remained unreserved and unused—commonly called “bachat land.” The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (FB) partly allowed their challenge: it held that land reserved for common purposes vests with the Panchayat (even if not yet utilised), but unreserved bachat land does not vest and remains with the proprietors. The State appealed.

The case has a complex procedural history. An earlier 2022 Supreme Court judgment had upheld the State’s appeal, but that decision was recalled on review in 2024. The present judgment decides the appeal afresh.

Summary of the Judgment

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench’s view that lands not earmarked for any specific common purpose under the consolidation scheme do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State (para 53).
Controlling precedents: The Court applied the Constitution Bench rulings in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (both 1967), and explained why Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab (1965) was not determinative given its pre–Seventeenth Amendment posture (paras 24–53).
“Beneficiary test” under Article 31-A (second proviso): Reservation of land to generate income for the Panchayat is an acquisition by the “State” (Panchayat being “State” under Article 12) and attracts the second proviso to Article 31-A (market-value compensation if within ceiling and under personal cultivation), whereas land pooled and used for common purposes for the benefit of the village community is a modification of rights and not an acquisition by the State (paras 46–50).
Vesting requires possession under the 1948 Act: Management and control under Section 23-A vest in the Panchayat only after possession changes under Section 24 of the 1948 Act; until then, holders’ rights are neither modified nor extinguished (paras 49–51).
Stare decisis applied: A long line (100+ decisions) of Punjab & Haryana High Court rulings consistently holding that bachat land reverts to proprietors was endorsed; stability of law warranted preserving this settled position (paras 58–62).
Effect on 1992 amendment: The Court declined to accept the State’s broad reading that all “Jumla Malkan/Mushtarka Malkan” entries ipso facto became shamilat deh; the 1992 expansion cannot sweep in unreserved bachat land. The amendment may be clarificatory for lands actually reserved for common purposes, but not a device to divest proprietors of unreserved land.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab (1965) 1 SCR 82

Concerned transfer of shamilat deh for various purposes during consolidation. The High Court had upheld the transfer without compensation under Article 31-A as it then stood.
Why not determinative now: The Supreme Court notes that Ranjit Singh did not address the second proviso to Article 31-A (introduced by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964) as parties did not re-argue its effect. Hence, it provides limited guidance on the precise constitutional question involved here (paras 26–27).

2) Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 143

Four categories under Article 31-A(1)(a): (i) acquisition of an estate; (ii) acquisition of rights in an estate; (iii) extinguishment of rights; (iv) modification of rights (para 31).
Beneficiary test: If the State is the beneficiary, it is “acquisition”; if not, it is “modification/extinguishment” (para 33).
Rule 16(ii) (Punjab Consolidation Rules, 1949): Title in land reserved for common purposes remains with the proprietary body; Panchayat manages on their behalf; it cannot be used for any purpose other than common purposes (paras 37–39). Hence, such pooling and common use is not “acquisition by the State.”
Second proviso to Article 31-A: Not a narrow technical term. If the State, in substance, acquires all rights for its own purposes, the proviso applies—even if bare title nominally remains with the owner (paras 34–35, 42).
Ajit Singh thus distinguishes permissible pooling for community benefit from impermissible State acquisition; this frames the distinction used in the present case.

3) Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 165

Reservation “for income of the Panchayat”: Such reservation is acquisition by the State (Panchayat being “State” under Article 12) and attracts the second proviso to Article 31-A (paras 46–48). The Court warns against using consolidation schemes to mask State acquisition without compensation by labelling it “income for Panchayat.”
Vesting contingent on possession: Under Sections 23-A and 24 of the 1948 Act, management/control vests and rights are modified/extinguished only after possession changes pursuant to the scheme (paras 49–51). Mere repartition orders are not equivalent to “acquisition.”
This case is foundational for both constitutional and procedural constraints on how consolidation reserves may be structured and when vesting occurs. The present decision relies heavily on it.

4) Other authorities

Attar Singh v. State of U.P., (1959) Supp 1 SCR 928: Cited in Ajit Singh to highlight the community-benefit nature of pooled lands for common amenities—owners sacrifice a little, gain collective benefits.
K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1: Invoked by respondents to underscore that Article 300-A protects against arbitrary deprivation of property; statutes authorising deprivation must satisfy standards of non-arbitrariness and proportionality, and compensation must be just, fair and reasonable. The Court’s ratio in the present case, however, rests on Article 31-A precedents.
Maganlal Chhaganlal v. MCGM, (1974) 2 SCC 402, and Waman Rao v. Union Of India, AIR 1981 SC 271: Applied to justify adherence to stare decisis—long-accepted legal positions should not be disturbed without compelling reasons (paras 60–61).
Gurjant Singh (P&H High Court, DB): A key High Court decision (affirmed in substance when this Court in 2001 deleted only a timeline for repartition) holding that unutilised/unreserved bachat land reverts to proprietors pro rata (paras 54–57).

Legal Reasoning in the Present Judgment

No vesting absent reservation under the scheme: The Court draws a sharp line between:
- Land reserved/assigned for common purposes in the consolidation scheme under Section 18 of the 1948 Act—management vests in the Panchayat (Section 23-A), though vesting is functionally effective upon possession transfer under Section 24; and
- Bachat land—land contributed but not reserved/earmarked for any common purpose in the scheme. Such land does not vest in the Panchayat/State and remains with proprietors (paras 52–53).
Reading down the 1992 amendment’s Explanation: The Explanation to Section 2(g)(6) of the 1961 Act says that lands recorded as “Jumla Malkan/Mushtarka Malkan” are shamilat deh. The Court clarifies that this cannot be read to convert bachat land into shamilat deh merely by revenue nomenclature. Only those “Jumla Malkan” lands that are actually reserved/assigned for common purposes in a valid scheme can be treated as shamilat deh.
Beneficiary test under Article 31-A (second proviso):
- Pooling for “common purposes” that benefit the community (and ultimately proprietors themselves) is a modification of rights, not “acquisition by the State.”
- Reservation “for income of the Panchayat” makes the Panchayat the beneficiary; it is an “acquisition by the State,” attracting the second proviso’s compensation mandate (paras 46–48).
Vesting requires possession change: The statutory scheme (Sections 23-A and 24, 1948 Act) is sequential. Management and control vest, and rights stand modified/extinguished, only when allottees actually enter into possession of allotted holdings. Administrative steps or repartition orders by themselves do not consummate vesting (paras 49–51).
Stare decisis and legal certainty: With more than a hundred decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court consistently treating bachat land as reverting to proprietors, and this Court’s own prior stance in Bhagat Ram and Ajit Singh, the Court emphasises stability and predictability (paras 58–62). The State had itself not pressed a contrary position when challenging Gurjant Singh before this Court in 2001, except to delete a time-bound direction.

Impact and Implications

For proprietors: Claims over bachat land are fortified. Where land was contributed during consolidation but not reserved for a specific common purpose in the scheme—and proprietors remained in possession—such land does not vest in the Panchayat/State merely because the ownership column shows “Jumla Malkan/Mushtarka Malkan.”
For Gram Panchayats and revenue authorities:
- Panchayats cannot rely solely on the 1992 Explanation or revenue entries to assert ownership over unreserved bachat land.
- Management of lands actually reserved for common purposes is preserved, but only for those purposes; Panchayats are managers, not absolute owners, of such pooled lands (per Rule 16(ii), as emphasised in Ajit Singh).
- Reservations “for income of the Panchayat” are constitutionally vulnerable as “acquisitions” attracting the second proviso to Article 31-A unless compensation conditions are satisfied.
On mutations and entries: Mutation entries made in Panchayat/State favour premised on a broad reading of the 1992 amendment are open to correction. By dismissing the State’s appeal, the High Court’s directions—including cancellation of such mutations inconsistent with this legal position—remain undisturbed.
On repartition of bachat land: The established practice, endorsed across cases including Gurjant Singh, is to redistribute bachat land amongst proprietors pro rata to their contribution during consolidation. While this Court previously removed a strict timeline (in 2001), the substantive direction stands.
For consolidation officers going forward:
- Clearly demarcate lands reserved/assigned for common purposes in the scheme (Section 18, 1948 Act), and ensure possession changes (Section 24) to complete vesting of management (Section 23-A).
- Avoid labelling reservations as “for income of Panchayat”; if essential public purposes require acquisition, follow constitutionally compliant acquisition routes with compensation where mandated.
Constitutional law clarity: The decision entrenches the beneficiary test for Article 31-A’s second proviso and reaffirms that legislative redefinitions (like the 1992 Explanation) cannot be used to effect disguised acquisitions of private property without satisfying constitutional safeguards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Shamilat deh: Village common lands. Under the 1961 Act (as applicable in Punjab/Haryana/UT Chandigarh), such lands are governed by special rules, with Gram Panchayats often exercising management/control.
“Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad” / “Jumla Malkan” / “Mushtarka Malkan”: Revenue entries typically indicating ownership in common by all proprietors/right-holders in proportion to their holdings. These entries can describe both (a) pooled land reserved for common purposes, and (b) bachat land—hence the need to look at the scheme reservation, not just the label.
Bachat land: The surplus/unutilised land remaining after applying the pro-rata cut during consolidation, which was not reserved for any specified common purpose in the consolidation scheme. It remains with proprietors and is redistributed pro rata.
Pro-rata cut: The fractional deduction from each proprietor’s holding during consolidation to create a common pool for village amenities.
Article 31-A (second proviso): Protects laws relating to agrarian reforms/consolidation from challenges under Articles 14, 19, 31, but with an important proviso: if the State acquires land within a person’s ceiling limit under his personal cultivation, compensation at least equal to market value is required.
Beneficiary test (from Ajit Singh/Bhagat Ram): If the State (including Panchayat as “State” under Article 12) is the beneficiary, the measure is an “acquisition” (triggers the second proviso). If the community is the beneficiary and the Panchayat only manages pooled land for common amenities, it is a “modification” of rights (no acquisition).
Sections 23-A and 24 (1948 Act): Management and control of land assigned/reserved for common purposes vest in the Panchayat (Section 23-A) only after allottees enter into possession under Section 24. Possession is the trigger for vesting/alteration of rights.
Stare decisis: The judicial policy of adhering to settled precedents to ensure stability and predictability. It can be invoked even if earlier judgments did not explicitly examine every argument now raised, so long as the question was addressed and a consistent position has prevailed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed and consolidated the legal position that has guided consolidation jurisprudence for decades:

Bachat land is not “shamilat deh”: Land contributed during consolidation but not reserved/assigned for specified common purposes in the consolidation scheme does not vest in the Panchayat/State, notwithstanding “Jumla Malkan/Mushtarka Malkan” revenue entries.
Reservation for common purposes vs. Panchayat income: Pooling and management for community amenities is permissible and not an acquisition by the State; but reservations to generate income for the Panchayat amount to acquisition and attract the second proviso to Article 31-A.
Vesting follows possession: Rights stand modified/extinguished and management vests in the Panchayat only upon possession change under the 1948 Act.
Stability of law preserved: The Court’s embrace of stare decisis protects long-settled expectations of proprietors and ensures that consolidation schemes achieve their intended goals without morphing into covert acquisition devices.

Practically, the decision curtails overbroad assertions of Panchayat ownership premised on the 1992 amendment’s Explanation and revenue entries, and it provides clear guidance to consolidation and revenue authorities: the consolidation scheme’s reservations, read with statutory vesting mechanics, are decisive. For future cases, this judgment will be a principal authority on the limits of “shamilat deh,” the constitutional constraints under Article 31-A, and the procedural preconditions for vesting under the Consolidation Act.