The amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands Act provides retrospective validity to allotments made before July 9, 1985, thereby affirming the legality of previous allotments despite prior Supreme Court rulings.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The present petitioners becoming aggrieved from the makings of concurrently made verdicts, thus respectively by the Assistant Collector concerned, and, by the Collector concerned, to which respectively Annexure P-1 and P-2 become assigned, whereby the apposite petition thus seeking eviction of the respondents from the petition lands became dismissed, thus, have instituted thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court.

2. The eviction of the respondents in the said petition was claimed on the ground, that the respondents concerned had assumed illegal and unauthorized possession over the petition lands, despite the petitioners herein being khewatdars of the village, rather through their predecessors-in-interest, especially when qua them became reserved rights but alongwith other members of the village proprietary body, to use the petition lands, rather for common benefits/common users, thus in the finalized consolidation scheme.

3. They asserted that since the attestation of mutation, as made vis-a-vis the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus by the revenue officer concerned, rather remained un-challenged, thereby the allotment(s), if any, as made by the custodian concerned, but not being binding, upon, the Gram Panchayat concerned.

4. In short, the contention (supra) became planked on a verdict made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Versus Malwinder Singh, reported in 1985 AIR (Supreme Court) 1394. Since thereins, it becomes expostulated, that after the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, thus the custodian concerned, became left with no vestige of jurisdiction, thus to make allotment(s) 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.

5. In sequel, it became contended that the allotment(s), if any, as made in breach of the judgment (supra), thus by the custodian concerned, is completely tainted and flawed.

6. However, through the Amending Act No. 13 of 1996, Section (ii-a) became inserted in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1961’), provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter.

(ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been alIotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department 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 allotment(s) made of the shamilat deh lands, by the custodian concerned, but yet with a cut-off date being mentioned thereins, inasmuch as, the allotments being required to be made before the 9th day of July, 1985.

8. 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.

9. Significantly, the patta or the allotment as made to the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein, inasmuch as, as made in favour of Mohd. Yusuf son of Mohd. Yakub, by the custodian concerned, who thereafter made alienations thereof, to the vendees concerned, who are arrayed as respondents in the relevant lis’, but remains unchallenged. The effect thereof, is but naturally that, the allotment made to Mohd. Yousuf son of Mohd. Yakub, thus by the custodian concerned, who thereafter alienated, the said lands through respectively entered wasika No.2568 dated 20.10.1977 and Vasika No. 362 dated 25.06.1982, thus to t