The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective validity of legislative enactments and their impact on mutations and land disputes.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions arise from a common order, drawn by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on 2.11.2017, upon ROR No. 75 of 2008-209. Moreover, when they also relate to a common challenge being made to an order drawn on 11.12.2017, by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, whereby mutation, in respect of the petition lands, was sanctioned in favour of co-respondent No. 6. Therefore, all the writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common order.

Factual background

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts, which are necessary for deciding the above mentioned writ petitions, are being taken from CWP No. 18514 of 2019.

3. The order, carried in Annexure P-9, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hisar, on 11.12.2017, is the subject matter of challenge in all the writ petitions, whereby the learned Assistant Collector concerned, changed the mutation from the name of the present petitioners to the Gram Panchayat, Balawas, and, thereafter sanctioned mutation No. 1093 qua the Gram Panchayat, Balawas.

4. Prior to the allotments, being made of the petition lands to the allottees concerned, and, in pursuance to the incorporation of Section (ii-a) in Section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961), through an amending Act No. 13 of 1996, the petition lands fell within the inclusionary definition of shamilat deh. Prior to the said amending provision, being inserted in the Act of 1961, through an amending Act No. 13 of 1996, the petition lands being obviously shamilat deh lands, thus they completely vested in the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, the custodian concerned, was not ably empowered to make allotments of the petition lands in favour of the allottees concerned.

5. The said disempowerment of the custodian concerned, but prior to the amended provision becoming validly inserted in the Act of 1961, whereby he became completely disempowered to make allotments of the shamilat deh lands, to the allottees concerned, is banked, upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur versus Malwinder Singh, and, to which Civil Appeal No. 1401(N) of 1973 is assigned. From a reading of the said decision, it is but clear, that after the coming into force of the Punjab Act of 1953, the custodian concerned, was left with no vestige of jurisdiction to make allotments of shamilat deh lands to the allottees concerned, as the said shamilat deh lands, did rather on migrations of Muslims, from India to Pakistan, became completely vested in the Gram Panchayat concerned.

6. However, through the amending Act No. 13 of 1996, Section (ii-a) became inserted in Section 2(g) of the Act 1961, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter.

(ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been alIotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Departrment of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985 ;]

7. The said inserted provision though did assign retrospective validity to allotments made of the shamilat deh lands, by the custodian concerned, but with a cut-off date thereins, inasmuch as, the allotments being required to be made before the 9th day of July, 1985. It is pertinent to mention here, that the vires of insertion of provision (supra) through the amending Act No. 13 of 1996, was challenged before this Court, in a case titled as Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan versus State of Punjab and others, and, to which CWP No. 4816 of 1996, is assigned. However, through a decision made on the said petition, this Court had upheld the vires of the said inserted provision hence through the relevant amending Punjab Act No. 8 of 1995, and, Haryana Act No. 13 of 1996. Though the vires of the provision, as challenged in the petition (supra), appertained to the inserti