D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) LETTERS Patent Appeals Nos. 578 and 579 of 1981, involve common question of law and therefore, a common judgment is proposed.
(2.) THE judgment under appeal decided two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3245 and 3244 of 1976 which to involved common question of law. In each case, the action of resumption in terms of Section 13 of the Puniab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of Section 13 were ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was asserted that Section 12 of the Act provided recovery of any amount due from a transferee as arrears of land revenue whereas Section 13 of the Act authorized the competent authority to resume the site and forfeit the amount already paid. Out of the two legal remedies envisaged by Sections 12 and 13, which one is to be resorted to in which case, no guidelines have been provided by the statute with the result that transferee identically situated could be discriminated against by taking resort to the provision of Section 12 in one case while dealing with the other under Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act was, therefore, struck down as unconstitutional by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Shri Dharam Pal and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Anr., 1978 P.L.J. 396. Following the said Division Bench judgment the learned Single Judge quashed the resumption orders. The two pleas that were raised to question the maintainability of the petitions, one, based on the factum of latches and the other grounded on the factum of non -joinder of the persons who had sold out the given plot after resumption orders were made, were rejected so far as the first plea was concerned by observing that the action of the State Government was void ab initio, so the question of latches did not arise and the second plea by observing that the State Government had no title to pass and, therefore, the second transferee from the State Government acquired no right in the plot, hence it was not necessary to join them as Respondents. A Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ramji Dass v. The State of Punjab and Ors. CW 7170 of 1975 decided on 19th October, 1980, was distinguished by observing that, in that case, constitutional vires of Section 13 of the Act were not under challenge.
(3.) AFTER the filing of the letters patent appeals, the Act has been amended by the Punjab Act No. 16 of 1981. As a result of the amendment, the existing provision of Section 12 has been omitted. Section 13, as reframed has been made operative with retrospective effect from 1st November, 1966. By the provision of Section 8 of the amending Act, the Legislature has validated all actions taken under the existing provisions of Section 13 notwithstanding any judgment, etc.;