RAM PARSHAD(DEAD) vs THE STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARIAT — C.A. No. 6996/2014
Case under Section IV. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010079742004
Filing Date
12-Apr-2004
Registration No
C.A. No. 6996/2014
Diary Number
7974/2004
Order Date
16-Sep-2025
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Data as of 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAM PARSHAD(DEAD)
Adv. RAVINDRA BANA A. P. MOHANTY (Dead / Retired / Elevated) RAVINDRA BANA[LR/S]
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARIAT
Adv. R. D. UPADHYAY (Dead / Retired / Elevated) B. K. SATIJA[R-2]
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
After Week/Month/Vacation
After Week/Month/Vacation
Ordinary
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-Dec-2017 | After Week/Month/Vacation |
| 05-Oct-2017 | After Week/Month/Vacation |
| 12-Jul-2017 | Ordinary |
Orders in this case
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 6990/2014
SUMMARY: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others (2025 INSC 1122) Case Details Citation: C.A. No. 006996/2014; 2025 INSC 1122 Parties: State of Haryana (Appellant) v. Jai Singh and Others (Respondents) Date: September 16, 2025 Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) Judges: B.R. Gavai (CJI), Prashant Kumar Mishra, K.V. Viswanathan Key Issue Whether unused land contributed by proprietors during land consolidation proceedings but not reserved for common purposes (called "bachat land") must revert to the proprietors or vest with the Gram Panchayat. Decision Appeal DISMISSED. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment holding that bachat lands (unutilized lands) must revert to proprietors, not vest with the State or Gram Panchayat. Main Holdings 1. Land Reserved vs. Unreserved: Land explicitly reserved for common purposes under the Consolidation Act vests with the Gram Panchayat. Land NOT reserved for common purposes must return to proprietors in proportion to their contribution. 2. Acquisition Doctrine: Reservation of land solely for generating Gram Panchayat income violates Article 31-A (constitutional protection for land acquisition) as it lacks a legitimate public purpose. 3. Possession Requirement: Under Sections 23-A and 24 of the Consolidation Act of 1948, management and control of reserved lands vest in the Panchayat only AFTER possession changes hands. Until then, proprietors' rights remain unextinguished. 4. Stare Decisis Applied: Over 100 consistent High Court judgments held this position for decades. The doctrine of stare decisis supports following such settled law unless manifestly erroneous. 5. Constitutional Compliance: The 1992 Haryana amendment expanding the definition of "shamilat deh" (common land) does not apply retroactively to land never designated as common property in original consolidation schemes. Reasoning The Court distinguished between land taken for legitimate common purposes (schools, cremation grounds, pastures) and land earmarked for State/Panchayat income generation. The former benefits proprietors collectively; the latter constitutes compulsory acquisition requiring market-value compensation under Article 31-A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts