V.K.Bali, J.

1. In this bunch of petitions, proprietors, holding land in the village, who contributed a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land, meant exclusively for common purposes of the village inhabitants, take strong exception to Sub-clause (6) of Section 2(g) and an explanation appended to the said sub-clause, inserted in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1961). The said Sub-clause (6) and the explanation, appended thereto, came to be inserted in the Act of 1961 by virtue of Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated February 11, 1992 by Act No. 9 of 1992 which received the assent of the President on January 14, 1992.

2. Considering the matter to be involving important questions of law, likely to arise in large number of cases and involving large chunk of land, the Honble Division, Bench, then seized of the matter, vide orders dated June 1, 1993, ordered the papers of the case to be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench for determination of vires of the Act and explanation, referred to above. Vide a detailed judgment dated January 18, 1995, Honble Full Bench of this court, allowed the bunch of writ petitions, main judgment having been recorded in CWP No. 5877 of 1992 [Reported as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, (1995-1) 109 P.L.R. 614 (F.B.)" ........ Editor]. Operative part of the judgment, dealing with vires of Sub-clause (6) of Section 2(f) and the explanation, appended thereto as also some other sections, which were under challenge, reads thus:-

"(i) Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Haryana Amendment Act, 1992, Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 vide which addition has been made to the definition contained in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the principal Act) is ultra vires the Constitution of India;

(ii) Section 3 of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 vide which Section 7 of the Principal Act has been substituted and the substituted provisions, viz., Sub-section (1) of Section 7 are intra-vires the Constitution of India;

(iii) Section 3 of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 vide which Section 7 of the Principal Act has been substituted and the substituted provisions, viz., Sub-section (2) of Section are intra-vires the Constitution of India, and

(iv) Section 5 of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 which has amended Section 13-B of the Principal Act and the proviso to the substituted Sub-section (1) is ultra vires the Constitution of India."

3. The State of Haryana challenged the decision of Honble Full Bench vide Civil Appeal No. 5480 of 1995 [Reported as State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 322 (S.C.) - Editor]. The Honble Supreme Court, dealing with the appeal in the matter aforesaid, reproduced para 60 of the judgment of the Honble Full Bench in its order dated August 6, 1998, which, for facility of reference is reproduced below:-

"In view of the observations cited above, Sections 2(g)(4) and 2(g)(6) of the Act of 1961 describes the land reserved for common purposes under Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 by application or prorata cut to the holdings of the land owners within their celling limits as Shamlat Deh under the Act of 1961 and since these lands have been vested in the Panchayat the action is in violation of Article 31-A. Since definitions by Section 2(g)(4) and 2(g)(6) are so intermingled that no part can be segregated and held ultra vires and these sections having categorically transgressed the powers of the State for acquisition of land without compensation, these provisions can not stand the test of constitutionality. It is immaterial that the transgression is open, direct or overt, disguished covert and indirect. It is a piece of colourable legislation. Violation of Article 31-A is so manifest that it leaves no manner of doubt. I am of the considered view that Sections 2(g)(4) and 2(g)(6) are void being viol