On 16 September 2025, a bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, with Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, handed down a landmark judgment that finally settles disputes which have embroiled thousands of landowners and Gram Panchayats—especially in prime suburban belts such as the National Capital Region, the periphery of Chandigarh, and fast-urbanising centres across Haryana and Punjab (p. 51). The Apex Court dismissed Haryana’s appeal, restored the settled line of law of the full bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and realigned practice to the text and structure of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 (the Consolidation Act) and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act).
What is now settled—cleanly stated
1) Only land actually reserved/assigned in the consolidation scheme vests in the Panchayat/State; un-earmarked “bachat”/Mushtarka (Jumla) Malkan land does not. The Court endorses the Full Bench view that:
(a) land reserved under Section 18(c) of the Consolidation Act and forming part of the scheme vests with the Government/Panchayat, whether or not it has yet been utilised; and
(b) land contributed pro‑rata but not reserved/earmarked for any specific common purpose—i.e., bachat—remains with the proprietors in proportion to their contribution (paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
2) Vesting turns on possession under Section 24; Section 23‑A does not vest management/control until possession actually changes. Reaffirming the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram, the judgment holds that rights are not modified or extinguished until possession is taken under Section 24 (para 51, p. 42).
3) “Income of Panchayat” reservations attract the second proviso to Article 31‑A. Where reservation is merely to raise Panchayat income (Panchayat being “State” for this purpose), acquisition standards apply and market‑value compensation is constitutionally required in the protected class of holdings (pp. 38–39; 45–46).
4) Stare decisis governs. The Court relies on a long, consistent line of Punjab & Haryana High Court authority (e.g., Gurjant Singh), noting that unutilised bachat must be redistributed among proprietors pro‑rata, and finds “no error” in the Full Bench’s approach (paras 52, 56–62, pp. 46–51).
Why the background matters
Haryana’s Act 9 of 1992 expanded the 1961 Act’s definition of “shamilat deh” by inserting Section 2(g)(6) and an Explanation deeming entries such as “Jumla Malkan,” “Mushtarka Malkan,” or “Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran…” to be shamilat deh and tying vesting to Section 23‑A of the Consolidation Act (pp. 3–4). Landowners challenged this move; a Punjab & Haryana High Court Full Bench struck it down in 1995. After interim twists—including a now‑recalled 2022 view—the Supreme Court has now dismissed Haryana’s appeal and restored the Full Bench’s core holdings (pp. 5–7; conclusion at para 63, p. 51).
Haryana and Punjab: does this apply only to one state?
Although the amendment under challenge was Haryana‑specific, the Supreme Court’s analysis turns on the Consolidation Act and Constitution Bench law applicable across both states. The operative distinctions—reserved vs unreserved (bachat), and actual possession under Section 24—apply equally in Punjab, subject to any later state‑specific amendments to the 1961 Act.
In Punjab, Section 42‑A (2007) bars partition of land reserved for common purposes and mandates its continued use for those purposes. Crucially, Section 42‑A does not convert bachat into “reserved” land. Bachat is, by definition, the un‑earmarked remainder after the scheme’s common‑purpose needs are provided for (para 51, p. 42; paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
Section 42 and Section 42‑A of the Consolidation Act (Punjab): how they bite
Section 42 (revisionary power): Enables correction of illegality or impropriety in orders/schemes/repartition. In light of the Court’s reaffirmation that vesting follows possession (s.24), Section 42 can be used to correct wrong mutations that treated unreserved bachat as shamilat deh on the strength of labels or the 1992 deeming move (para 51, p. 42; paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
Section 42‑A (2007): Prohibits partition of land reserved for common purposes and mandates its use for those purposes. This protects truly reserved common land but does not swallow bachat, which was never reserved in the scheme (paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
Compensation in Land Acquisition Cases
A particularly important collateral impact arises in land acquisition proceedings. Where Mushtarka Malkan or bachat land has been acquired for public purposes—especially for national highways—the compensation has often remained unpaid to landowners because of inter se disputes and competing claims— of landowners as well as the concerned Gram Panchayat— pending in courts. Large sums are lying locked up. This judgment now clears the way for those cases to be unclogged, with compensation released to the rightful claimants in line with the clarified law. However, landowners will lose interest for the intervening period, since once the acquiring department deposits the compensation in court, the running of further interest ceases.
Stakeholder impact — who gains, who loses
Proprietors/Landowners
Clear gains where land is unreserved bachat. Such land does not vest in the Panchayat/State; it reverts/redistributes among proprietors pro‑rata to their original contribution (paras 52, 56–57, pp. 46–49). Caveat: Where land is properly reserved in the scheme (even if unused), it vests; proprietors cannot reclaim it on the ground of non‑utilisation (paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
Gram Panchayats
Secure title/management for land reserved in the scheme (utilised or not). But Panchayats cannot rely on mere labels (Jumla/Mushtarka Malkan) to claim vesting over unreserved bachat. Reservations “for income of Panchayat” are constitutionally vulnerable within the second proviso to Article 31‑A (pp. 38–39; 45–46).
State Governments (Haryana & Punjab)
Must align revenue and consolidation practice with the reserved‑unreserved distinction and the Section 24 possession rule. Prospective, scheme‑consistent policy is the safer course; blanket retrospective deeming of bachat as shamilat would amount to acquisition and face Article 31‑A/Article 300‑A hurdles (pp. 38–42).
Old cases and existing mutations
Mutations in favour of Panchayats that rest solely on the 1992 deeming Explanation—without a specific scheme‑based reservation—are untenable after this ruling. The Full Bench’s approach to cancelling improper mutations stands validated; the Supreme Court expressly finds no error in holding that non‑earmarked land does not vest in the Panchayat/State (para 53, pp. 46–47). With the Gurjant Singh line endorsed, redistribution of bachat among proprietors pro‑rata remains the default, subject to case‑specific finality/limitation concerns (paras 54–57, pp. 47–49).
Practical Action Points
For proprietors: Pull the scheme file—Section 14 scheme and the Section 18(c) reservation list. If your land was not reserved/assigned, it is bachat, typically recorded as “Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran…” with proprietors shown in possession (pp. 44–45). Use Section 42 revision and revenue proceedings to correct mutations founded only on the 1992 deeming clause (para 53, pp. 46–47).
For Panchayats/BDOs/DDPOs: Catalogue all parcels reserved in the scheme and ensure utilisation aligns with the specified purpose. Avoid staking title to unreserved bachat from ownership‑column labels alone. In Punjab, use Section 42‑A to resist partition of reserved lands; do not conflate bachat with “reserved” (paras 54–57, pp. 43–45).
For Consolidation & Revenue departments: Issue a clarificatory circular restating: (i) reservation/assignment (not labels) governs vesting; (ii) management/vesting under Section 23‑A follows Section 24 possession; (iii) “income” reservations trigger Article 31‑A constraints; and (iv) redistribution of bachat among proprietors pro‑rata (paras 51–57, pp. 42–49).
A Shot in the Arm for Property Rights in Land
At bottom, the decision restores the scheme-centric discipline of consolidation: what the scheme “reserves/assigns” for common purposes is what vests/stands managed for those purposes; what remains surplus/bachat does not (para 53, p. 46). Vesting and any modification/extinguishment of rights are tied to actual change of possession under Section 24, not mere repartition on paper (para 51, p. 42). And it puts constitutional brakes on expropriation via labels like “income of the Panchayat,” holding that such reservations are, in substance, acquisitions by the State and therefore attract the second proviso to Article 31-A (market-value compensation where the land is under personal cultivation within ceiling) (pp. 38–39, 45–46).
Policies dressed up as empowerment of Panchayats or welfare schemes must conform to this standard—what matters is the beneficiary and the substance of the taking (pp. 29–31, 37). Article 300-A remains an additional backstop against deprivation without lawful authority and just compensation, but the Apex Court’s holding here is grounded in 31-A’s second proviso read with the Consolidation Act’s text. Practically, that means state “deeming/retrospective” moves that pull bachat into shamilat without satisfying the proviso will be constitutionally suspect; conversely, lawful reservations made in a scheme for common purposes—and managed for those purposes—remain protected. The immediate task for Haryana and Punjab is administrative: respect the scheme, correct the records, and draw a bright line between genuinely reserved common-purpose land and bachat that reverts to proprietors (pp. 42–46).