PRITAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1633 of 1981 and 2467 of 1984, because they raise common questions of law and fact.

(2.) In both these writ petitions the petitioners seek a declaration that the provisions of section 13-B introduced in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') by Act No. 19 of 1976, and enforced with effect from 15th April, 1976 were unconstitutional because it declared that the decrees of the civil Courts shall not be binding on the Panchayats. This provision intends to make a direct inroad into the judicial powers of the Courts, expressly reserved by the Constitution to be exercised by the Courts of law only. They have also sought the quashing of proceedings under section 7 of the Act launched against them for their eviction by their respective Gram Panchayats. A similar provision was introduced in the Principal Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana by the Legislature of that State in 1981 and Section 13-D of the Act was introduced which is exactly in the same terms as the present Section 13-B of the Act in the Principal Act and is being impugned by the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the constitutionality of that provision in Baljinder Singh and another v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade Guhla and others,1983 PunLJ 116, and after exhaustively referring to the case law on the subject their Lordships held :-

(3.) The petitioner's request for quashing of the proceedings pending against them cannot be granted. The proceedings are pending before the Competent Authority. No decision has been taken so far because of the stay orders passed by this Court. The petitioners can urge the points raised in this writ petition before the Collector, who is seized of the matter. It is no gain- saying the fact that the decisions in Baljinder Singh's case and Gurnam Singh's case are binding on the Collector also.