NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE AND ANR. versus DES RAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 08-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE AND ANR. 
v. 
DES RAJ AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965/Punjab Village Common Land 
(Regulation) Act, 195~Proviso to Rule 3/Section 3(a)-Land included in 
shamilat deh and vested in the Gram Panchayat concemed by vi1tue of 
S.3(a)-Whether got divested by viltue of the Proviso to Rule ~Held: 17ie 
proviso did not operate qua the lands vested in the Gram Panchayat. 
A 
B 
c 
Certain lands used for common purposes but were shown as 
shamilat deb afterwards came to be vested in the Gram Panchayat con-
cerned pursuant to what has been provided in S3 of the Punjab Village 
Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1953. The land was mutated in the name D 
of the appellant in accordance with Haryana Municipal Common Land 
(Regulation) Act, 1974. Since the said Act was declared void by a Full 
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the respondents-earlier 
owners of the land - filed a suit seeking declaration that the said land got 
reverted to them. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs preferred E 
an appeal and it was allowed by the Additional District judge. The High 
Court dismissed the second appeal. Hence this appeal by the Committee. 
The respondents-plaintiffs contended that for the appellant to claim 
vesting of the land in it, the whole of the Sabha area must have been 
included in it, that the omission of the proviso by notification dated 22nd 
December, 1976 could not alter the position inasmuch as the area had been 
declared to be part of the notified area on 6.10.75 and so the proviso 
operated by its own force on that date because of which its omission later 
on could not alter the legal position. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The only effect of non-inclusion of the whole of the area 
F 
G 
of a Gram Panchayat is that the jurisdiction of the concerned Notified 
Area Committee shall get reduced and would be confined to the part 
included. In the present case there is nothing to show that the part of the H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Gram Panchayat in which the suit land is situate had not been included 
in the territorial area of the appellant-committee. [570-E-F] 
B 
2. The Addi. District Judge took the view that as the 1953 Act was 
repealed, vesting of the land in the appellant can be said to be only under 
the 1961 Act because of the proviso to section 16. This was a wrong view 
to be taken because the proviso speaks of things done or action taken 
under the 1953 Act and allows them to continue in force unless and until 
superseded by anything done or any action taken under the 1961 Act. This 
proviso does not apply to rights which got vested by operation of the 1953 
Act. These are protected by section 4(c) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 
C 
1898, according to which, the repeal of an enactment does not affect, inter 
alia, any right acquired under the repealed enactment. As in the present 
case the Gram Panchayat had acquired the right under the 1953 Act, its 
repeal by 1961 Act did not in any way affect the right which the Gram 
Panchayat had acquired over the lands in question. So, the proviso did not 
operate qua the lands at hand. [571-C-E] 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7018 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.1991 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in RS.A.No. 1179 of 1991. 
S.M. Ashri for the Appellant. 
S.P. Goyal, Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA. J. The point for determination in this appeal is as to 
whether land included in shamilat deb which had come to be vested in the 
concerned Gram Panchayat by virtue of section 3(a) of the Punjab Village 
Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1953 (for short,'the 1953 Act') got 
G 
divested because of what has been mentioned in the proviso to Rule 3 of 
the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965, framed in exercise of powers 
conferred by Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter the 
'Panchayat Act'). 
2. The fads lie in narrow compass and are not disputed. The same 
H are that the laµds with which this appeal is concerned were being used, to 
NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE v. DES RAJ [HANSARIA, J.] 
569 
start with, for common purposes like 'gair mumkin rasta' and 'gao charand', A 
but were shown as shamilat deh afterwards and came to be vested in the 
concerned Gram Panchayat pursuant to what has been provided in section 
3

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.