Supreme Court Clarifies: Jumla Malkan (Bachat) Land Is Not Shamlat Deh
📅 Judgment Date: 16 September 2025
⚖️ Citation: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Others,
2025 INSC 1122 (Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014)
🏛️ Background of the Dispute
The roots of the dispute lie in the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which governs Shamlat Deh
(village common lands). During consolidation of agricultural holdings under the
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948, a portion of each proprietor’s land was contributed to create a common
pool for village needs.
This land was meant for paths,
ponds, schools, cremation grounds, playgrounds, and other common purposes.
However, land contributed but not earmarked or used for any specific common
purpose—known as Bachat land or recorded as Jumla Mushtarka
Malkan—became the bone of contention.
- State’s View:
All such land vests in the Gram Panchayat.
- Proprietors’ View:
Only land actually reserved/used for common purposes vests in Panchayat.
Unutilized land remains with the landowners.
📚 Case History
- 1992 – Haryana Amendment: Expanded Shamlat Deh to include Jumla Malkan.
- 1995 – Punjab & Haryana High Court: Struck down amendment as unconstitutional.
- 1998 – Supreme Court:
Remanded matter for reconsideration under Article 31-A.
- High Court (Impugned Judgment): Held unutilized/Bachat land does not vest in
Panchayat.
- 2014 – State’s Appeal: Haryana challenged before Supreme Court.
- 2022 – SC Judgment:
Initially upheld 1992 amendment, favoring Panchayats.
- 2024 – Review Allowed: SC recalled 2022 judgment citing oversight of
precedents.
- 16 September 2025 – Final Judgment: Appeal dismissed, proprietors’ rights restored.
⚖️
Supreme Court’s Ruling (2025)
- Land reserved for common purposes = vests in Gram Panchayat.
- Unutilized land (Bachat/Jumla Malkan) = remains with proprietors.
- Vesting such land in Panchayats = unconstitutional
compulsory acquisition.
- Relied on Constitution Bench rulings: Ranjit Singh,
Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram.
- Applied stare decisis, respecting decades of
consistent High Court rulings.
📊 Comparison Table
|
Aspect |
Shamlat Deh (Common Land) |
Jumla Malkan / Bachat Land |
|
Origin |
Created during consolidation and earmarked for
community use |
Created from proprietors’ contributions but not
earmarked/unused |
|
Ownership |
Vests in Gram Panchayat |
Remains with original proprietors (in proportion to
contribution) |
|
Purpose |
Roads, ponds, schools, cremation grounds, playgrounds,
etc. |
Can be re-partitioned among proprietors |
|
Legal Status |
Part of Shamlat Deh under the 1961 Act |
Not part of Shamlat Deh; protected by SC judgment
(2025) |
|
Control |
Gram Panchayat manages and regulates |
Proprietors retain rights and can claim repartition |
⚖️ Impact on Pending Cases
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State
of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1122) will have direct
consequences on thousands of cases currently pending before revenue
authorities, civil courts, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
1.
Civil and Revenue Litigation
- Cases where Gram Panchayats claimed ownership of
Jumla Malkan/Bachat land will now tilt in favor of proprietors.
- Courts and revenue officers must apply the 2025 SC
precedent, dismissing Panchayat claims over unutilized land.
- Proprietors can seek repartition of such land in
accordance with their original contributions.
2.
Eviction Proceedings by Panchayats
- Many Panchayats had filed ejectment petitions
against individuals in possession of Bachat land.
- Post-judgment, such proceedings will likely be dismissed,
since Panchayats have no legal title over unutilized land.
3.
Consolidation and Mutation Records
- Consolidation authorities and revenue officials will be
required to rectify records, ensuring Bachat land is not entered as
Shamlat Deh.
- Mutations already entered in the Panchayat’s name may
have to be reversed.
4.
Ongoing Appeals in High Court
- The Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had been
following its own consistent line in favor of proprietors, will now rely
on the Supreme Court’s affirmation, giving finality to many
long-pending writ petitions and appeals.
5.
Protection from Retrospective State Action
- Haryana and Punjab governments had earlier issued
circulars to vest Jumla Malkan land in Panchayats. Such
circulars/executive orders now stand ineffective, reducing chances
of fresh litigation.
🔑 Bottom Line
- Pending cases involving Jumla Malkan/Bachat land will
now be decided in favor of proprietors,
unless the land was actually reserved for community purposes during
consolidation.
- Panchayats lose the right to claim unutilized land, limiting their authority to only genuinely earmarked
Shamlat Deh.
- This will drastically reduce the burden of
litigation in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, where thousands of
similar cases are on the docket.
✍️
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 16 September
2025 ruling clearly separates Shamlat Deh from Jumla Malkan.
While Panchayats rightfully control land meant for common use, proprietors retain
ownership over unutilized Bachat land.
This landmark judgment safeguards
property rights, ensures fairness, and provides long-awaited clarity in rural
land disputes.
Supreme Court Clarifies: Jumla Malkan (Bachat) Land Is Not
Shamlat Deh
📅 Judgment Date: 16 September 2025
⚖️ Citation: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Others,
2025 INSC 1122 (Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014)
🏛️ Background of the Dispute
The roots of the dispute lie in the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which governs Shamlat Deh
(village common lands). During consolidation of agricultural holdings under the
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948, a portion of each proprietor’s land was contributed to create a common
pool for village needs.
This land was meant for paths,
ponds, schools, cremation grounds, playgrounds, and other common purposes.
However, land contributed but not earmarked or used for any specific common
purpose—known as Bachat land or recorded as Jumla Mushtarka
Malkan—became the bone of contention.
- State’s View:
All such land vests in the Gram Panchayat.
- Proprietors’ View:
Only land actually reserved/used for common purposes vests in Panchayat.
Unutilized land remains with the landowners.
📚 Case History
- 1992 – Haryana Amendment: Expanded Shamlat Deh to include Jumla Malkan.
- 1995 – Punjab & Haryana High Court: Struck down amendment as unconstitutional.
- 1998 – Supreme Court:
Remanded matter for reconsideration under Article 31-A.
- High Court (Impugned Judgment): Held unutilized/Bachat land does not vest in
Panchayat.
- 2014 – State’s Appeal: Haryana challenged before Supreme Court.
- 2022 – SC Judgment:
Initially upheld 1992 amendment, favoring Panchayats.
- 2024 – Review Allowed: SC recalled 2022 judgment citing oversight of
precedents.
- 16 September 2025 – Final Judgment: Appeal dismissed, proprietors’ rights restored.
⚖️
Supreme Court’s Ruling (2025)
- Land reserved for common purposes = vests in Gram Panchayat.
- Unutilized land (Bachat/Jumla Malkan) = remains with proprietors.
- Vesting such land in Panchayats = unconstitutional
compulsory acquisition.
- Relied on Constitution Bench rulings: Ranjit Singh,
Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram.
- Applied stare decisis, respecting decades of
consistent High Court rulings.
📊 Comparison Table
|
Aspect |
Shamlat Deh (Common Land) |
Jumla Malkan / Bachat Land |
|
Origin |
Created during consolidation and earmarked for
community use |
Created from proprietors’ contributions but not
earmarked/unused |
|
Ownership |
Vests in Gram Panchayat |
Remains with original proprietors (in proportion to
contribution) |
|
Purpose |
Roads, ponds, schools, cremation grounds, playgrounds,
etc. |
Can be re-partitioned among proprietors |
|
Legal Status |
Part of Shamlat Deh under the 1961 Act |
Not part of Shamlat Deh; protected by SC judgment
(2025) |
|
Control |
Gram Panchayat manages and regulates |
Proprietors retain rights and can claim repartition |
⚖️ Impact on Pending Cases
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State
of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1122) will have direct
consequences on thousands of cases currently pending before revenue
authorities, civil courts, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
1.
Civil and Revenue Litigation
- Cases where Gram Panchayats claimed ownership of
Jumla Malkan/Bachat land will now tilt in favor of proprietors.
- Courts and revenue officers must apply the 2025 SC
precedent, dismissing Panchayat claims over unutilized land.
- Proprietors can seek repartition of such land in
accordance with their original contributions.
2.
Eviction Proceedings by Panchayats
- Many Panchayats had filed ejectment petitions
against individuals in possession of Bachat land.
- Post-judgment, such proceedings will likely be dismissed,
since Panchayats have no legal title over unutilized land.
3.
Consolidation and Mutation Records
- Consolidation authorities and revenue officials will be
required to rectify records, ensuring Bachat land is not entered as
Shamlat Deh.
- Mutations already entered in the Panchayat’s name may
have to be reversed.
4.
Ongoing Appeals in High Court
- The Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had been
following its own consistent line in favor of proprietors, will now rely
on the Supreme Court’s affirmation, giving finality to many
long-pending writ petitions and appeals.
5.
Protection from Retrospective State Action
- Haryana and Punjab governments had earlier issued
circulars to vest Jumla Malkan land in Panchayats. Such
circulars/executive orders now stand ineffective, reducing chances
of fresh litigation.
🔑 Bottom Line
- Pending cases involving Jumla Malkan/Bachat land will
now be decided in favor of proprietors,
unless the land was actually reserved for community purposes during
consolidation.
- Panchayats lose the right to claim unutilized land, limiting their authority to only genuinely earmarked
Shamlat Deh.
- This will drastically reduce the burden of
litigation in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, where thousands of
similar cases are on the docket.
✍️
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 16 September
2025 ruling clearly separates Shamlat Deh from Jumla Malkan.
While Panchayats rightfully control land meant for common use, proprietors retain
ownership over unutilized Bachat land.
This landmark judgment safeguards
property rights, ensures fairness, and provides long-awaited clarity in rural
land disputes.
⚖️ Disclaimer
This blog post is for awareness
and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No part of
this content is intended as solicitation of work, in accordance with Bar
Council of India rules. For specific guidance, please consult a qualified
advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amarjeet Singh, Advocate
Chamber No 536, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi (India)
Email: amarjeetpanghal@gmail.com
Mob: +91-9829015812
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amarjeetpanghal
No comments:
Post a Comment