Pritam vs State of Punjab

S.S. Kang, J. (Oral)

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1633 of 1981 and 2467 of 1984, because they raise common questions of law and fact.

In both these writ petitions the petitioners seek a declaration that the provisions of section 13B introduced in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter called `the Act'') by Act No. 19 of 1976, and enforced with effect from 15th April, 1976 were unconstitutional because it declared that the decrees of the civil Courts shall not be binding on the Panchayats. This provision intends to make a direct inroad into the judicial powers of the Courts, expressly reserved by the Constitution to be exercised by the Courts of law only. They have also sought the quashing of proceedings under section 7 of the Act launched against them for their eviction by their respective Gram Panchayats. A similar provision was introduced in the Principal Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana by the Legislature of that State in 1981 and Section 13D of the Act was introduced which is exactly in the same terms as the present Section 13B of the Act in the Principal Act and is being impugned by the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the constitutionality of that provision in Baljinder Singh and another v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Guhla and others, 1983 PLJ 116, and after exhaustively referring to the case law on the subject their Lordships held :

``For the detailed reasons aforesaid, the retrospective abrogation of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts validly exercised by them from 1961 onwards by the impugned section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act 2 of 1981, clearly amounts to a trenching upon the judicial power by the Legislature. Consequently, the relevant part of the aforesaid section fictionally substituting section 13 with effect from the 4th of May, 1961 and thereby giving retrospectivity thereto from the said date, is held to be unconstitutional and is hereby struck down.''''

The ratio in Baljinder Singh''s case (supra) is a reply to the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the constitutionality of section 13B of the Act. This provision of law is constitutional but it was no retrospective effect. It shall not have the effect of nullifying the decrees passed by the civil Courts before the enactment and enforcement of section 13B of the Act. This conclusion of mine is in consonance with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court recently in Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab and others, 1984 PLJ 580 : 1984 R.R.R. 187, wherein the view in Baljinder Singh''s case (supra) was affirmed.

The petitioner''s request for quashing of the proceedings pending against them cannot be granted. The proceedings are pending before the Competent Authority. No decision has been taken so far because of the stay orders passed by this Court. The petitioners can urge the points raised in this writ petition before the Collector, who is seized of the matter. It is no gain saying the fact that the decisions in Baljinder Singh''s case (supra) and Gurnam Singh''s case (supra) are binding on the Collector also.

With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed as premature. No costs.