Courtroom Chronicles

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STATE OF HARYANA’S APPEAL IN VILLAGE LAND DISPUTE

by | Jun 12, 2024

ASPECTS DETAILS
Case Title Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Introduction Review petition filed by Karnail Singh against Supreme Court’s judgment allowing Haryana’s appeal in a land dispute over common village lands.
Factual Background
  • Original Appeal: Review of SC’s decision allowing Haryana’s appeal against HC’s judgment on village common lands.
  • Legislation: Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 amended Village Common Lands Act, 1961.
  • HC Judgment: Parts of 1992 amendment declared unconstitutional by Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, later overturned by SC.
Legal Issues Validity of 1992 amendment to Haryana Village Common Lands Act, 1961. Scope of review jurisdiction. Vesting and control of lands reserved for common purposes.
Applicable Law
  • Constitution of India: Article 31-A and its second proviso.
  • Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
Analysis
  • Review Petition: SC’s judgment allegedly ignored previous Constitution Bench rulings and misinterpreted laws.
  • Respondent’s Arguments: Review petition not maintainable, issues already decided.
  • Judicial Precedents: Control of common lands doesn’t vest in Panchayat until possession changes.
Conclusion SC upheld its original judgment, dismissing Karnail Singh’s review petition. Lands reserved for common purposes cannot revert to proprietors once reserved.
Current Scenario SC’s decision stands, affirming Haryana’s control over disputed village lands. Review petition did not alter original judgment.

 

CASE SUMMARY – The case involves Karnail Singh’s review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the State of Haryana’s appeal in a land dispute over village common lands. The petition challenged the constitutional validity of a 1992 amendment to the Haryana Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous ruling, maintaining that lands reserved for common purposes could not revert to proprietors and emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the State’s control over these lands remains upheld.

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

READ MORE –  CHALLENGE TO ICAI’S TAX AUDIT CEILING GUIDELINE BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.

Related Posts