Source: Indian Express

Introduction

The Supreme Court has permitted a review of its 2022 judgment on 'shamlat deh' land, which is land contributed to by multiple landowners for the common purposes of the village. This decision safeguards the rights of village landowners in Haryana, as the Court reconsiders its earlier ruling where a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian had allowed gram panchayats to acquire such land.

Bhagat Ram vs State of Punjab, (1967)

• In 1967, a five-judge Bench considered the legality of a land consolidation scheme for Dolike Sunderpur village.
• The scheme proposed reserving lands for common purposes and diverting their income to the panchayat.
• Landowners argued it violated Article 31A's proviso on land acquisition below the ceiling limit.
• The state argued that reserving lands for the panchayat's income doesn't constitute land acquisition.
• Earlier, the Bench clarified the difference between state acquisition of land and modification/extinguishment of land rights.
• Applying this, the SC ruled that the panchayat, and hence the state, was the beneficiary, qualifying as acquisition.
• Accepting the state's argument would undermine the purpose of Article 31A's proviso.
• The state also claimed the land was acquired before Article 31A came into force, but the SC noted possession wasn't transferred due to a High Court stay.
• Under the Consolidation Act, the scheme would be deemed to have come into force only after possession transfer.

Jai Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)

• In 2003, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed a challenge to the 1992 amendment to the Punjab Act, which granted control of shamlat deh land in Haryana to the gram panchayat.
• Village landowners contested this amendment in the case of Jai Singh vs State of Haryana.
• The High Court ruled that only land reserved for common purposes under the Consolidation Act would be vested with the gram panchayat, not individual proprietors' contributed land not part of the consolidation scheme.
• Citing the SC's Bhagat Ram decision, the High Court held that acquiring non-reserved land without compensation violated Article 31A's second proviso.
• The state of Haryana appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, where Justices Gupta and Ramasubramanian overturned the 2003 decision in 2022.
• The Bench reasoned that compensation wasn't required as Article 31 had been omitted after the forty-fourth constitutional amendment.
• They further held that panchayats gained management and control of the land upon assignment, before executing the consolidation scheme, and weren't acquiring it.
• Therefore, the second proviso of Article 31A did not apply as the panchayats were merely managing the land on behalf of the landholders.

Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2024)

• Justices Gavai and Mehta, in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2024), criticized the 2022 decision for inadequately addressing the Constitution Bench's ruling in Bhagat Ram.
• They found the 2022 decision's treatment of Bhagat Ram as cursory, lacking explanation for why the High Court's reliance on it was dismissed.
• Karnail Singh Bench stated that the 2022 decision, contrary to Bhagat Ram, wrongly vested control of land in the panchayat upon assignment, rather than upon possession transfer.
• This departure from a Constitution Bench decision constituted a significant error, warranting review.
• Consequently, the 2022 decision was recalled, and the challenge to the 2003 High Court ruling will be reheard starting August 7.

44^th Amendment related to Article 31 A

• The 44^th Amendment Act of 1978 abolished the right to property as a fundamental right.
• It amended Article 31A to remove the restriction on challenging laws under it for violating fundamental rights.

Article 31A of Indian Constitution

• Includes
  • Acquisition of estates and related rights by the State;
  • Taking over the management of properties by the State;
  • Amalgamation of corporations;
  • Extinguishment or modification of rights of directors or shareholders of corporations
  • Extinguishment or modification of mining leases.
• Position of Fundamental Rights
  • Article 31A cannot be challenged on the ground of void, inconsistency with or infringement on the rights granted by Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
• Proviso
  • State laws require the President's assent to be subject to Article 31A.
  • Land acquisition laws must provide compensation equal to market value for lands held under personal cultivation within the ceiling limit.
• Sub- Article
  • The term "estate" encompasses various land tenures as defined by local laws, including jagirs, inams, muafis, and janmam rights in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, as well as lands under ryotwari settlement and those utilized for agricultural purposes or ancillary activities.
  • "Rights" related to an estate include those held by proprietors, sub-proprietors, tenure-holders, raiyats, under-raiyats, or other intermediaries, along with any privileges concerning land revenue.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to permit a review of its judgment on 'shamlat deh' land safeguards the rights of village landowners in Haryana, ensuring adherence to established precedents and constitutional provisions regarding land acquisition and property rights.