Teja Singh, C.J. - (1.) IN this petition which purports to be under Article 227, Constitution of India prayer is made that writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition be issue against the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 restraining them from realising certain sum ;from them. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are: The Collector, of Sangrur, The A.C. Sangrur, Naib Tehsildar (Rehabilitation) Sunam District Sangrur, ;Custc -4 -'an Muslim Evacuee Property Pepsu, Patiala and HirJ. Chand petition writer Sunam District Sangrur, Along with them there is a Respondent No. 6 Jai Singh son of Suhel Singh.
(2.) THE facts of the case as gathered from the contents of the petition are that the Petitioners got certain Muslim evacuee land on lease for Rabt 2005 and agreed to pay Rs. 25625/ - as lease money. Later on the land was leased out to Hari Chand. Respondent No. 5 for Rs. 35000/ - but the lease in Hari Chand's favour was set aside by the Revenue Minister who ordered that the Petitioners should pay Hari Chand the amount that he had spent on the land. No date of the Revenue Minister's order is given in the petition but a certified copy of it produced on record before me by Mr. Amar Nath counsel for Hari Chand Respondent shows that it was made on 29 -11 -2004. When the papers were forwarded to the Collector Sunam in accordance with the Revenue Minister's order he by his order dated 9 -3 -2005 Samvat assessed the amount to be realised from the Petitioners at Rs. 1270/8/ - and ordered that proceedings for realisation should take place. For some reason or other which is not clear from the present record nothing further was done till 23 -7 -1952 AD. when the papers were placed before the A.C.R. who ordered warrants of attachment to issue against the defaulters for the next day on 6 -8 -52 i.e. the A.C.R. ordered the papers to be forwarded to the Naib Tehsildar for proper proceedings and at the same time directed that the amount realised should be. paid' to Hari Chand. The Petitioners contend that they were not liable to pay anything to Hari Chand and that the/orders of the Revenue Minister and the Tehsildar making them liable were illegal and ultra vires and consequently they pray that appropriate writs be issued to the Respondents Nos. 1 to restraining them from going on with the proceedings that they are taking. The first thing urged by Mr. Banwari Lai counsel for the first four Respondents is that since the petition is under Article 227 and that Article does not give the High Court power to issue any kind of writ it must be thrown out for this reason. I agree with the learned Counsel that Article 227 has no applicability and writs can be issued only under Article 226, but this was just a clerical mistake in the petition, and I do not regard the defect in the petition as material. Then it was urged by Mr. Banwari Lal that the Constitution having come into force on 26 -1 -1950 no action could be taken under Article 226 in respect of the orders made prior; to that date. He argues that the Constitution had no retrospective effect and further that it does not give the High Courts in India the authority to interfere with the orders made by the authorities before the States which were not part of India acceded to the Union. In my judgment both these contentions are well founded. I may mention here that Section 60, Patiala and East Punjab States Union Judicature Ordinance No. 10 of 2005 which was in force in the State before the Constitution also gave this High Court power to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition etc., but the Petitioners cannot derive any help from it either, for the simple reason that that Ordinance was promulgated by His Highness the Rajpramukh on 10 -7 -2005, and the orders of the Revenue Minister and the Collector which the Petitioners challenged in these proceedings were made before that.
(3.) THE result therefore is that the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/ -.;