On 19 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed SLP(C) No. 19032/2024 — confirming the rights of Gram Panchayat Badopal, Fatehabad, Haryana, over a designated village pond that had been in private occupation for over five decades. The dismissal, passed by a Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, brought closure to a dispute that had travelled through four forums over eleven years. I appeared for the Gram Panchayat as respondent counsel.

Case at a glance
Case: Ram Murti v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Court No. 5
Land: 16 Kanals — Village Badopal, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana
Designation: "Aprahan Johar" (Village Pond) — Wajib-ul-Arz (1953) + Consolidation Scheme

What is a Johar, and why does it matter?

A Johar is a traditional village pond — a common water body used for cattle, groundwater recharge, and as village common land. In law, it is classified as Shamilat Deh (land belonging to the village community) and protected under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. When land is designated "Aprahan Johar" in the Wajib-ul-Arz and Consolidation Scheme, it cannot be sold or alienated — any purported sale deed is void ab initio.

Five decades of dispute

In 1970, a sale deed purported to transfer the disputed land to the Petitioner's father, and a mutation was entered. For decades the land remained in private occupation. When the Gram Panchayat pursued the matter legally, it took eleven years across four forums — the Collector, the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court — all of whom ruled in the Panchayat's favour, holding that the sale deeds were void from the outset. A Special Leave Petition followed before the Supreme Court, which was ultimately dismissed on 19 May 2026.

Why the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP

• Concurrent findings of four forums — Article 136 of the Constitution is not a second appeal on facts. Where four forums have concurrently found in favour of a party, there is ordinarily no substantial question of law left for the Supreme Court to examine.
• Earmarked Johar land vests in the Gram Panchayat — In State of Haryana v. Jai Singh (2025 INSC 1122), the Supreme Court confirmed that land specifically earmarked for a common purpose under a Consolidation Scheme vests in the Gram Panchayat. This Johar was designated by name, and Jai Singh settled the point directly.
• Nemo dat quod non habet — one of the original sellers had himself stated before the District Collector that he was not entitled to transfer the land. On the principle that no one can give what they do not have, the Petitioner's title failed at its root.

What this means for Gram Panchayats

• Designated Johar land is protected by law, and courts will enforce that protection all the way to the Supreme Court.
• Concurrent findings across multiple forums create a strong shield against relitigation — build the case thoroughly at the first forum.
• A counter affidavit before the Supreme Court is often the most important document in a respondent's case.
• A sale deed of Shamilat Deh land is void ab initio — no length of possession or revenue entry can cure that defect.

If your Gram Panchayat faces a similar encroachment

• Verify the Wajib-ul-Arz and Consolidation Scheme records — these are the primary evidence of earmarking.
• File promptly before the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 — delay weakens the case.
• Collect all revenue records: Khasra Girdawari, Jamabandi, and mutation orders.
• Oppose any interim orders at the earliest opportunity — an unchallenged ex parte stay can cause lasting ground-level damage.