http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4145 of 2001

PETITIONER: Gram Panchayat, Village Kum Kalan

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4145  OF 2001

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)      This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  dated 24.05.2000 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 4816 of 1996 in and by which the  Division Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the  appellant herein. 2)      Gram Panchayat, Village Kum Kalan, Tehsil and Dist.  Ludhiana through its Sarpanch, has filed the above appeal.   According to the appellant, the mutation of the land in dispute  which is Shamlat Deh measuring 242 kanals 11 marlas was  sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat.  Earlier the  Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 was  amended by Punjab Act No. I of 1954 and definition of  Shamlat Deh was given in Section 2(g) of the said Act and the  provisions of the Amended Act were made applicable w.e.f.  09.01.1954 retrospectively.  In the Jamabandi, for the year  1965-66, Gram Panchayat has been described as the owner.   Similarly, in the year 1970-71, Gram Panchayat was shown as  the owner.   3)      The dispute arose regarding the applicability of the  provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)  Act,1961 and the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee  Property Act, 1950.  The matter was taken to this Court and  by order dated 19.03.1975, this Court granted stay of the  allotment of the land to the displaced persons.  In spite of the  stay orders of this Court, the land was allotted to Savitri Devi,  Widow of Bal Mukund, respondent No.7 herein and the Gram  Panchayat-appellant herein was compelled to file Civil Writ  Petition No. 3560 of 1976 in the High Court of Punjab &  Haryana challenging the allotment of the Shamlat Deh land in  favour of Savitri Devi.  By order dated 23.08.1985, the High  Court quashed the allotment of Savitri Devi-respondent No.7  herein.   4)      In the year 1985, this Court settled the question  regarding repugnancy of provisions of the Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 with the provisions of  the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, in the case  of Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder  Singh & Ors.,  PLJ 1985 463 = (1985) 3 SCC 661.  In this  case, the State of Punjab took the stand that by reason of the  Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 as  amended in 1961, the interest of the persons in the Shamlat  Deh lands stood extinguished and the Shamlat Deh lands

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

were fully placed in the control and power of the Gram  Panchayat and in view of the above judgment, C.W.P. No. 3560  of 1976 was allowed by the High Court and the allotment of  land made in favour of Savitri Devi was quashed.  This order of  the High Court dated 23.08.1985 was not challenged before  this Court and it became final. 5)      In the year 1994, the Gram Panchayat filed an  application under Section 7 of the Punjab Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Sections 5 &  7 of the Punjab Panchayats Act before the Collector,  respondent No.5 herein.  On 08.05.1995, the State of Punjab  amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,  1961 thereby validating and legalizing the illegal and invalid  allotment of land of the Gram Panchayat to the displaced  persons with the intention of abrogating the judgment passed  by this Court in   Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs.  Malwinder Singh & Ors. (supra) and the Collector was given  the powers in view of the amended provisions to ignore the  judgment of this Court. 6)      On 25.03.1996, the Gram Panchayat filed C.W.P. No.  4816 of 1995 in the High Court for quashing the notification  dated 08.05.1995 and also for striking down the provisions of  the Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 being ultra vires of the  Constitution of India and violative of the Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as it has set at naught  and abrogated the validity of the judgment passed by this  Court.  On 24.05.2000, the High Court dismissed C.W.P. No.  4816 of 1995 filed by the Gram Panchayat.  Since the High  Court has not considered the relief prayed for in the writ  petition, the Gram Panchayat filed the present appeal. 7)      We heard Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned senior counsel, for  the appellant and Mr. J.S. Wasu, learned senior counsel, Mr.  Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Ajay Pal, learned counsel for the  respondents. 8)      Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, by  drawing our attention to various enactments, amendments  brought in by the Punjab Government as well as the earlier  orders of this Court, contended that Amendment Act 8 of 1995  and the Notification are null and void and cannot be  sustained.  According to him, in spite of the specific grounds  particularly that the Amendment Act nullifies the judgment of  this Court, the High Court failed to take note of the same and  committed an error in not adverting to any of their challenge.      9)     In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, it is  useful to refer the impugned order passed by the High Court  which is as under: "We heard the learned counsel for the parties.  It is admitted  case that the allotment in favour of Savitri Devi was  cancelled by the High Court on account of the judgment of  the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur  vs. Malwinder Singh & Ors., 1985 P.L.J. 463.  to tide over  the effect of the judgment, an amendment was made in the  Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, by  amendment Act No. 8 of 1995, and by this amendment all  transfers of land made prior to the judgment of the Supreme  Court had been held to be valid.  In this view of the matter,  the basis of the order canceling the allotment of Savitri Devi  no longer subsists.  We, therefore, find no merit in the  petition.  Dismissed."

10)     It is relevant to refer the relief prayed for in the writ  petition by the Gram Panchayat.  The prayer is as under: "Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the  Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of  certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

deemed fit in the circumstances of the case quashing the  notification No. 8-LEG/95 dated 8.5.1995 Annexure P-9 and  strike down the provisions of the amendment Act No.8 of  1995 being ultra vires of the Constitution of India and  violative of the Act as it has set at naught and abrogated the  validly rendered judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of  India and the order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide  Annexure P-6."

It is clear that after setting out various grounds, the Gram  Panchyat has prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash the  Notification dated 8.5.1995 and also to strike down the  Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 as ultra vires of the Constitution  of India as well as the earlier judgment of this Court. 11)     In the impugned judgment, after merely recording the  fact of Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 was brought in the  Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and  concluding that the basis of the order canceling the allotment  of Savitri Devi no longer subsists, dismissed the writ petition  filed by the Gram Panchayat.  As rightly pointed out by the  learned senior counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, the  High Court has not considered the relief/challenge made in  the writ petition.  In other words, in the judgment, the High  Court has not dealt with the point in issue, namely, whether  the Amendment dated 8.5.1995 (Amendment Act No. 8 of  1995) made by the State of Punjab has been validly made or  not. The abovementioned order of the High Court goes to show  that practically no reason was indicated with reference to the  challenge to the Amendment Act.  The dismissal of the writ  petition in such summary manner without adverting to their  relief prayed for without indicating any reason is clearly  indefensible.  This Court in series of decisions held that  reasons introduce clarity in an order and failure to consider  the relief/challenge in the writ petition and the absence of  reasons render the High Court judgment unsustainable.  In  view of the fact that the High Court has not considered the  challenge as to the validity or otherwise of the Amendment Act   and the Notification thereon, we have no other option except to  set aside the impugned order and remit the same to the High  Court for fresh disposal.    12)     In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order  of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh disposal in  accordance with law by a reasoned order, particularly, with  reference to challenge made in the writ petition.  We make it  clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of  the case.  Inasmuch as the Gram Panchyat has approached  the High Court as early as in 1996, we request the High Court  to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible not  later than 30.8.2008. 13)     The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.   There shall be no order as to costs.