S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WOULD the retrospective abrogation of the jurisdiction of the Civil" Courts validly exercised for over two decades and the consequent setting at naught of all Judgments and decrees so rendered, amount to a trenching upon the judicial power by the legislature is the starkly significant question in. these two cases. More specifically the constitutionality of the recently inserted Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 with retrospective effect from the 4th of May, 1961 by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 is assiduously assailed on the ground aforesaid.
(2.) THE factual matrix may be taken from 565 of 1981 -Barjinder Singh v. State of Haryana etc. The Petitioners therein claim to be the owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 181 Kanals 10 Marias situate in village Dandauta, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra, on the basis of a decree of the Civil court dated the 13th of November, 1973. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Dandauta filed an application under Section 13 -A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1981 (hereinafter called the Act),as amended by Haryana Act 34 of 1974, before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kaithal, who by his order, dated the 13th of October, 1975 set aside the decree of the civil Court in favour of the Petitioners. Thereafter the Petitioners preferred C.W.P. No. 5922 of 1975 challenging the above -said order which was allowed by the Division Bench on the 10th of September, 1979, -vide judgment annexure P.1, and the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kaithal was quashed. However, the legislature of The State of Haryana passed the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980 (Act No. 2 of 1981) which received the assent of the President of India on the 31st of January, 1981 and was published in the Gazette on the 12th of February, 1981. The Gram Panchayat, Dandauta again filed an application, annexure P. 2, under Section 13 -A of the Act on the 29th of January, 1981 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla for setting aside the decree of the Civil Court passed in suit No. 1391 of 13th November, 1973 in favour of the Petitioners and the consequent mutation No. 311 of village Dandauta. The grievance of the writ Petitioners is that not only has the Assistant. Collector, 1st Grade entertained the aforesaid application but has passed an interim order annexure P. 3, dated the 29th of January, 1981, rest -raining the Petitioners from cultivating the above -said land and from making any changes therein. The writ petitioners challenged the very constitutionality of Sections 13,13 -A and 13 -D, as inserted by Act No. 2 of 1981 on the same grounds on which the earlier Section 13 -A introduced by the Amending Haryana Act of 1974 was struck down by the Division Bench in The Karnal Co -operative Farmers Society Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, Pehowa and Ors., 1976 P.L.J. 237.
(3.) THE stand taken on behalf of the Plaintiff -State and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla is that the assailed amendments introduced by Act 2 of 1981 are valid and constitutional. It is claimed that the legislature can enact any law retrospectively so as to nullify the effect of a judgment and even the blanket abrogation of the validly exercised jurisdiction by the Civil Courts over 20 years does not amount to any trespass into the judicial field.;