NAGINA ANTU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE JHANJARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law which calls for decision in each of these three petitions for revision (Nos. 881 to 883 of 1974) of the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, dated June 18, 1974, is whether the right to prefer a second appeal under S. 7 (4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) has or has not been taken away by Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Second Amendment Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Amending Act) from a litigant whose first appeal under Section 7 (3) against the order of the Assistant Collector under Section 7 (2) of the Principal Act was pending before the Collector on November 30, 1973, the date on and with effect from which the Amending Act came into force.

(2.) Since it is the common case of both sides that there is no material difference in the facts of these cases and the decision of one will govern all the three, I need only give the relevant facts of Civil Revision No. 881 of 1974 (Nagina v. Gram Panchayat). The respondent-Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 (1) of the Principal Act before the Assistant Collector First Grade to put the Panchayat in possession of the land which was in the possession of Nagina petitioner and which was claimed to have vested in the respondent-Panchayat. The Panchayat's application under Section 7 (1) of the Principal Act was allowed by the order of the Assistant Collector First Grade, dated September 25, 1973, under Sub-section (2) of Section 7. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 7 of the Principal Act were in the, following words:--

(3.) The petitioner had preferred his appeal to the Collector against the order of the Assistant Collector when the Amending Act came into force on November 30, 1973. By operation of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Amending Act, Subsection (4) of Section 7 of the Principal Act (whereby an appeal against the appellate order of the Collector had been provided to the Commissioner) was omitted. The Collector, having dismissed the petitioner's appeal on Feb. 5, 1974, a second appeal was filed by him (though erroneously described as a revision petition) before the Commissioner. That appeal has been dismissed by the order of the Commissioner, dated June 18, 1974, on the ground that no appeal can be filed against the appellate order of the Collector under Section 7 (3) of the Principal Act after the coming into force of the Amending Act. The correctness of that decision has been impugned in these three petitions for revision.