R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of a bunch of writ petitions which involve common questions of law and fact. The writ petitions can be divided into five categories. The number of the writ petitions, which are being disposed of by this judgment, are mentioned against each category: - 1st category: Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6798 and 6799 of 1974, and 91, 532 and 959 of 1975 2nd category: Civil Writ Petition No. 2390 of 1975. 3rd category: Civil Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1975. 4th category: Civil Writ Petition Nos. 466, 467, 487, 525, 918 and 2579 of 1975. 5th category: Civil Writ Petition No. 1248 of 1975. First I will deal with the writ petitions which fall in the 1st category. In this Judgment, facts are being given from Writ petition No. 5799 of 1976.
(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that land measuring 382 Acres, 7 Kanals and 18 Marias (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute), situated in the revenue estate of Pehowa, along with other land was taken possession of by the Collector, Karnal, under Section 3 of the East Punjab Utilization of lands Act, 1949, in the year 1949 -50, and was leased out to the Petitioner in 1951, under Section 5 of the said Act. The land in dispute was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat, Pehowa (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat), after the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation,) Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) In 1961, the 1953 Act was replaced by the Punjab Village Common Lard (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act.) The term 'Shamilat -deh' was defined in the 1961 Act. It is alleged by the Petitioner that by virtue of the definition of 'Shamilat -deh' and Section 3(2) of the 1961 Act, the land in dispute ceased to vest in the Panchayat after the commencement of the 1961 Act, and revested in the proprietory body of the village. The members of the Petitioner society purchased the rights of some of the proprietors in the revenue estate of Pehowa. They allege that after purchasing the proprietory rights they became joint owners of the land in dispute. In 1971, the Petitioner instituted Suit No. 338 of 1971 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, against the Panchayat, for a declaration to the effect that the members of the Petitioner -society, possessing proprietory rights, are the joint owners (proportionate to their proprietory rights) and in possession of the property in dispute. The Sarpanch of the Panchayat admitted the claim of the Petitioner -society and consequently the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on July 1, 1971 (Copy Annexure -1) and a declaration was given as claimed by the Petitioner society. The Panchayat, through its Administrator, instituted a civil suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, District, Kurukshetra, in December, 1973, for possession of the land in dispute on the ground that the decree for declaration dated July 1, 1971 was null and void and as such, not binding on the rights of the Panchayat During the pendency of the suit, the 1961 Act was amended by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), which was enforced on November 12, 1974. By virtue of this Act, Section 13 of the 1961 Act was substituted and two new sections, namely, Section 13 -A and 13 -B were added to that Act. In Section 13 -B, it was provided that all suits pending in any civil Court in respect of any land wherein relief had been claimed on the ground of its being excluded from the Shamilat -deh, under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, against the Panchayat, shall stand transferred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, having jurisdiction in the village where the lard is situated, who shall dispose of the same in the manner laid down in Section 13 -A (5) and (7). In view of the aforesaid provision, the Panchayat filed an application on December 10, 1974 (copy Annexure P/3) in the court of the Subordinate Judge for the transfer of the case to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal. The court, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner, passed an order on the same day (copy Annexure P/4) to the effect that the file of the case be sent to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal, for its disposal in accordance with law, and directed the Panchayat to appear before him on December 26, 1974. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Court dated December 10, 1974 inter alia, on the ground that the case could not be transferred by the Subordinate Judge to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, under Section 13 -B and that Section 13 -A added by the Amendment Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE writ petitions have been contested by the Respondents. There is no dispute regarding the aforesaid facts except that the Respondents say that the property in dispute is covered by the definition of ' Shamilat deh ' as given in the 1961. Act and vested in the Panchayat. The Respondents have, however, pleaded that the Court has correctly interpreted Section 13 -B and transferred the proceedings to the Assistant Collector and that the sections added by the Amendment Act are ultra vires.;