The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the proviso in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act and the applicability of the amendment to the Act to revisional proceedings.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - By this order, we propose to decide three writ petitions i.e. C.W.P.No.11821 of 1992 M/s Bhanot Leasing Limited and others vs. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others, C.W.P.No.2069 of 1992 M/s. Decent Towers (P) Limited & others vs. State of Haryana and others wherein order dated 23.7.1992 (Annexure P7) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon has been challenged and C.W.P.No.10381 of 1989 Gram Panchayat, Rithoj vs. Commissioner, (Appeals) Ambala Division and others, wherein order dated 24.2.1989 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner has been challenged.

2. Counsel for the parties have submitted that these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as similar facts and identical questions of law are involved. The facts in C.W.P.Nos.11821 of 1992 and 2069 of 1992 are as follows:-

3. Petitioners in these writ petitions purchased land from the proprietors of the village Behrampur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. The land in question stands entered in the revenue records i.e. jamabandis for the year 1939-40 as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Zameen and in the column of cultivation, the owners are shown to be in cultivating possession. The land owners asserted their right of ownership to the land by filing a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana, (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act) against the respondent-Gram Panchayat, Village Behrampur before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon. In the said suit, it was prayed that a declaration be issued to the effect that they were owners in possession of the land and that the Gram Panchayat had no vested right in the same. The suit was decreed in favour of the land owners vide order dated 20.6.1988 (Annexure P-1).

4. Respondent-Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector before the Collector, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the same. No revision was immediately preferred by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. The petitioners, after the declaration and the dismissal of the appeal, purchased the land vide different sale deeds during the period 24.1.1989 to 7.4.1989. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 17.7.1989.

5. Respondent-Gram Panchayat preferred revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on 21.7.1989 who vide order dated 21.7.1989 (Annexure P-4) stayed the operation of the order dated 20.6.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon and that of the Collector, Gurgaon dated 31.12.1988 and the respondents in the said revision petition were further restrained from changing the character of the land or alienate the same or to change its nature in any way till further orders. Since, the petitioners had not been impleaded as party, an application (Annexure P-5) was preferred by the Gram Panchayat to implead the petitioners as party thereto as they were subsequent purchasers after the decision of the Collector dated 31.12.1988. The said application was allowed by the Commissioner and notices were issued to the petitioners who appeared before the Commissioner and filed their reply to the revision petition and submitted their written arguments as well vide Annexure P-6. The Commissioner after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petition vide order dated 23.7.1992 (Annexure P-7), preferred by the Gram Panchayat, setting aside the orders passed in favour of the land owners holding therein that the proviso appearing after sub-clause (5) of Section 2 (g) of the 1961 Act which defines shamilat deh, applies to sub-clause (5) only and not to the total shamilat deh land as mentioned in sub-clauses (1) to (5). It was further held that the amendment brought about in the Act with effect from 11.2.1992 deleting proviso to sub-section (5) can be taken into consideration in the revision petition as the case cannot be said to have been final