T The controversy began when Haryana enacted Act 9 of 1992, amending Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act to include within “shamilat deh” all lands reserved for common purposes of a vil-lage, as well as lands recorded as Jumla Malkan’ (a type of village land created during the consolidation of agricultural hold-ings by making a pro-rata cut from individu al landowners plots for common village use) or ‘Mushtarka Malkan’. This effectively ex panded the scope of village commons and transferred control to gram panchayats.
Landowners challenged the amendment in HC, argu ing that the law amounted to compulsory acquisition with out compensation.
A full bench of high court struck down the amendment in 1996, holding that surplus lands not actually used for common purposes should re-
Satinder Duggal
