B.R.Tuli, J. - (1.) ATMA Singh and his two sons are the petitioners and they along with respondent No. 3 are right holders in the revenue estate of Fatta Khera, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur. Respondent 4 is the Gram Panchayat of that village.
(2.) THE consolidation proceedings started in that village in 1961 and an area of 257 kanals 5 marks (118 kanals 12 marlas nehri and 138 kanals and 13 marlas barani) was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat respondent 4. According to the petitioners, repartition proceedings were not started till after 1st July, 1964, because there were appeals, cross -appeals and revisions between the various right holders and repartition remained stayed. For that reason, the reservation of the land for the income of the Panchayat is challenged as unconstitutional being violative of second proviso of Article 31 -A of the Constitution of India. Respondents 1 and 2 in their written statements have admitted the reservation of the said land for the income of the Panchayat and it is asserted that the right holders changed the possessions on their own according Rabi l962. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat also got all the land reserved for its income, which was 271 kanals and 19 marlas according to the written statement, before 28th December, 1962, when the records of consolidation were consigned to the record room after completion of the entire proceedings. The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, whereby second proviso was added to Article 31 -A of the Constitution, came into force with effect from 20th June, 1964, and as the possession of the land had been taken by the Gram Panchayat before the date, the reservation of the land for the income of the Panchayat cannot be assailed in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act read with definitions of "Common Purpose" in section 2 (bb) of the Act. Under section 18, land could be reserved for common purpose of the village and common purpose included "providing income for the Panchayat of the village concerned for the benefit of the village community." It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1961 P&H 1, that 'a Panchayat clearly falls within the meaning of 'local authority' given in clause 31 of section 3 of the General Clauses Act. That being so, it is clear that the vesting of the property in the local Panchayat amounts to acquisition by the State. Article 31 -A permits acquisition by the State of an estate or a portion of an estate without paying any compensation to the proprietor." In Jagat Singh Didar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1962 P&H 221, a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court held that "The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, is a valid piece of legislation and cannot be struck down as unconstitutional. It is thus immune from attack by virtue of Article 31 -A (1) (a) of the Constitution." In Jagir Singh v. The State of Punjab : (1963) 65 P.L.R. 754, a Division Bench of this Court (Capoor and Pandit JJ.) held that the provision of land for extension of the village abadi for the use of non -proprietors or for enhancing the income of the Gram Panchayat was not illegal.
(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 632, held that the Act had the protection of Article 31 -A of the Constitution and was, therefore, valid.;