Rajesh Balia, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.08.2006. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. According to Annexure 1 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar who was also the Managing Officer (Rehabilitation) informed the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar that the sanad of allotment of land was issued on 26.09.1973 in favour of Prema Ram S/o Ramdas and members of his family namely his wife Smt. Chunni, son Kheta, brother. Majnu, Sukha, wife of his brother Rakma, wife of Koja, his niece Hardeva and his daughter Shanti. The Sanad was issued in the name of these nine persons but in the land record the name of only Prema Ram was recorded as Khetader. Therefore, directions to correct the land record to accord with the Sanad of allotment issued in favour of these nine persons were issued vide order dated 03.11.2004.

3. Against this order one Ladu Ram filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Collector cum Authorised Settlement Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar. He vide his order dated 29.12.2005 closed the proceedings of the appeal inter alia on the ground that since the Displaced Persons (Claims and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed, pending proceedings under aforesaid Act cannot be continued.

4. The revision before the District Collector cum Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner was filed who vide his order dated 09.01.2006 dismissed it inter alia on the ground that since there was no saving clause for saving the pending proceedings arising under the Act of 1954, the pending proceedings cannot be continued and they have lapsed automatically.

5. Challenging the orders dated 09.01.2006 and 29.12.2005 this petition was preferred.

6. Learned Single Judge vide his judgment under appeal dated 21.08.2006 held that in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the proceedings which are pending cannot be deemed to have lapsed because that question prejudices all those who are affected. With these observations the writ petition was disposed off directing that the stand of the State Government cannot be accepted and the proceeding which are pending proceedings shall continue till their decision in accordance with law. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 811 in the matter of Kolhapur Canesuga Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., in which it has been held that in the absence of saving clause and on repeal of an enactment the pending proceedings are not saved and they automatically lapse. The judgment of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

8. Having considered the aforesaid contention raised before us we find that there is basic fallacy in contention raised by learned counsel. The decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works makes out a clear distinction between repeal of a Central enactment and regulation as defined under Secs. 3 (19) and 3 (50) of General Clauses Act on the one side and repeal of a Rule as defined under Sec. 3 (51) of the General Clauses Act has clearly stated that since the provision of Section 6 has been made applicable only to an Act and regulation as defined in the Act and not to the rule framed under Central enactment which is not enacted as regulation as defined under Sec. 3 (50) the repeal of omission of a Rule by amendment does not invite application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It was pointed out that the term enactment as defined under Sec. 3 (19) include Regulation as hereafter defined in the General Clauses Act. Regulation has been defined under Sec. 3 (50) to mean a Regulation made by the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and includes a Regulation made by the President under Article 243 thereof and a Regulation made by the Central Government under the Government of India Act 1870 or the Government of India Act, 1915 or the Government of India Act 1935. Thus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document