S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. - (1.) WHETHER Article 31 -A(1)(a) provides an impenetrable protective shield around the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 against the constitutional attack launched on the basis of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution, is the solitary though substantial question arising in this petition.
(2.) THE facts are neither in dispute nor of any great relevance in a matter so patently legal. Nevertheless a passing reference to them is inevitable, though hardly any was made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioners claim to have purchased agricultural land, now within the municipal limits of Kaithal, - -vide thirteen registered sale -deeds executed during the months of September and October, 1971 for a consideration of Rs. 15,520. It is averred that the purchased land was in the actual possession of the different shareholders of the village Shamilat Deh who were, therefore, entitled to transfer the same. The Petitioners claim that thereafter they were put in and continued to be in actual peaceful possession of the land purchased by them. The Haryana legislature enacted the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) with effect from the 26th of January, 1973. By virtue of its provisions the land purchased by the Petitioners, being part of the Shamilat Deh, are sought to be vested in the Municipal Committee of Kaithal without payment of any compensation whatsoever. It is alleged that the Respondent -Municipal Committee and Respondent No. 3 the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal, are threatening to interfere with the title and peaceful possession of the Petitioners on the ground that the land purchased by them has passed into the ownership of Respondent No 2. Apprehensive of further hostile action against them, the Petitioners have preferred this writ petition to assail the very constitutionality of the Act.
(3.) NOW for a true appreciation of the contentions raised on either side, some reference to the legislative history and precedent in connection therewith is both inevitable and in fact necessary. The constitutional validity of an analogous statute, namely, the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as amended, was assailed before a Full Bench of this Court in Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. : A.I.R. 1961 P&H 1 and was upheld. The correctness of that view was again sought to be put to test following the decision of their Lordships in the well -known case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni etc. v. The States of Madras and Kerala and Ors. : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1080. A Full Bench of five judges in Jagat Singh Didar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. : A.I.R. 1962 P&H 221, reiterated the validity of the statute.;