Holding

A writ petition cannot be dismissed summarily without reasons and without addressing the relief sought; such an order is unsustainable and must be set aside.

Summary

The Gram Panchayat of Village Kum Kalan challenged a 1995 amendment (Amendment Act No. 8) to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which retrospectively validated land transfers that had been invalidated by a Supreme Court judgment in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh. The amendment and the accompanying notification were sought to be quashed as ultra vires of the Constitution and inconsistent with the earlier Supreme Court order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition without addressing the specific relief sought or providing reasons. The Supreme Court held that such a summary dismissal, lacking any reasoning and failing to consider the relief, was indefensible and set aside the High Court’s order. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal with a reasoned order, without expressing any view on the merits of the amendment’s validity.

Issues considered

The validity of Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh.
Whether the High Court erred by dismissing the writ petition without considering the relief sought and without providing reasons.

Legislation cited

Subjects

writ petitionArticle 226Article 227Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Actamendmentultra viresreasoned orderremandland allotmentShamlat Deh

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 692

.i..
A GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KUM KALAN '

v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4145 of 2001)
FEBRUARY 11, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
+
......
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
- Writ petition, challenging amendment made in 1961 Act -
c Dismissed by High Court without considering the re/J'tJf- Held:
Reasons introduce clarity in the judgment/order - Failure to
consider relief in writ petition and absence of reasons render
the order unsustainable - On facts, no reason indicated with
reference to challenge to Amendment Act - Thus, matter
remitted to High Court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
D
226 - Judgment/Order +.
In view of the judgment of this Court in *Gram
Panchayat of Village Jamal Pur vs. Ma/winder Singh and
Ors, the High Court cancelled the allotment of Shamlat
E deh land in favour of SD-displaced person. On 08.05.1995,
the State of Punjab made an amendment in the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and by
virtue thereof, all transfers of land made prior to the
judgment of this Court were held to be valid. The
F appellant-Gram Panchayat filed writ petition for quashing )C
the Notification dated 08.05.1995 and also for striking
down the provisions of the Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995
being ultra vires of the Constitution of India and violative
of the 1961 Act. High Court did not consider the relief
prayed for and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the
G
.. present ap'peal.
>---
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the
Court

H 692
"';-
-----i1
~ GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KUM KALAN v. STATE 693
OF PUNJAB & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~
~
HELD: The High Court did not consider the relief/ A
challenge in the writ petition as to the validity or otherwise
·of the Amendment dated 8.5.1995 (Amendment Act No. 8
of 1995) in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 made by the State of Punjab and the Notification
thereon. The order of the High Court shows that B
practically no reason was indicated with reference to the
.,-4 '
challenge to the Amendment Act. The dismissal of the writ
petition in such summary manner without adverting to
their relief prayed for without indicating any reason is
clearly indefensible. Reasons introduce clarity in an order c
and failure to consider the relief/challenge in the writ
petition and the absence of reasons render the High Court
judgment unsustainable. Thus, the impugned order is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court
for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned
D
4
order, particularly, with reference to challenge· made in the
writ petition. [Para 11] [697-C, D, E, F]
·~
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur vs. Ma/winder
Singh and Ors. PLJ 1985 463 = 1985 (3) SCC 661 - referred
to. E
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4145

....---if of 2001 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2000 of the
..,. ~ High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ F
.... Petition No. 4816 of 1996 .
S.D. Sharma and J.S. Wasu, Balbir Singh Gupta, Dinesh
Verma, A.P. Mohanty, Rajeev Sharma, Ajay Pal and Rohit for
the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) This appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 24.05.2000 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 4816of1996
in and by which the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition H
~\

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A filed by the appellant herein.
2) Gram Panchayat, Village Kum Kalan, Tehsil and Dist.
Ludhiana through its Sarpanch, has filed the above appeal.
According to the appellant, the mutation of the land in dispute
which is Shamlat Deh measuring 242 kanals 11 marlas was
B sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Earlier the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 was amended
by Punjab Act No. I of 1954 and definition of Sham lat Deh was
given in Section 2(g) of the said Act and the provisions of the
Amended Act were made applicable w.e.f. 09.01.1954
C retrospectively. In the Jamabandi, for the year 1965-66, Gram
Panchayat has been described as the owner. Similarly, in the
year 1970-71, Gram Panchayat was shown as the owner.
3) The dispute arose regarding the applicability of the
D provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 and the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950. The matter was taken to this Court and by
order dated 19.03.1975, this Court granted stay of the allotment
of the land to the displaced persons. In spite of the stay orders
of this Court, the land was allotted to Savitri Devi, Widow of Bal
E Mukund, respondent No. 7 herein and the Gram Panchayat-
appellant herein was compelled to file Civil Writ Petition No.
3560of1976 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging
the allotment of the Sham lat Deh land in favour of Savitri Devi.
By order dated 23.08.1985, .the High Court quashed the
F allotment of Savitri Devi-respondent No.7 herein.
4) In the year 1985, this Court settled the question
regarding repugnancy of provisions of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 with the provisions of
G the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, in the case
of Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Ma/winder Singh ·~
=
& Ors., PLJ 1985 463 (1985) 3 SCC 661. In this case, the
State of Punjab took the stand that by reason of the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 as amended in
1961, the interest of the persons in the Shamlat Deh lands stood
H
·~

GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KUM KALAN v. STATE 6Q5
OF PUNJAB & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
.. ...,. extinguished and the Shamlat Deh lands were fully placed in A
the control and power of the Gram Panchayat and in view of the
above judgment, C.W.P. No. 3560of1976 was allowed by the
High Court and the allotment of land made in favour of Savitri
Devi was quashed. This order of the High Court dated
23.08.1985 was not challenged before this Court and it became B
final.
~ 5) In the year 1994, the Gram Panchayat filed an
~·
application under Section 7 of the Punjab Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Sections 5 &
7 of the Punjab Panchayats Act before the Collector, respondent c
No.5 herein. On 08.05.1995, the State of Punjab amended the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 thereby
validating and legalizing the illegal and invalid allotment of land
of the Gram Panchayat to the displaced persons with the
intention of abrogating the judgment passed by this Court in D

• Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Ma/winder Singh
& Ors. (supra) and the Collector was given the powers in view
of the amended provisions to ignore the judgment of this Court.
6) On 25.03.1996, the Gram Panchayat filed C.W.P. No.
4816 of 1995 in the High Court for quashing the notification E
dated 08.05.1995 and also for striking down the provisions of
the Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 being ultra vires of the
Constitution of India and violative of the Punjab Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as it has set at naught and
,. ~ abrogated the validity of the judgment passed by this Court. On F
24.05.2000, the High Court dismissed C.W.P. No. 4816of1995
filed by the Gram Panchayat. Since the High Court has not
considered the relief prayed for in the writ petition, the Gram
Panchayat filed the present appeal.
G
7) We heard Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned senior counsel, for
the appellant and Mr. J.S. Wasu, learned senior counsel, Mr.
Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Ajay Pal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
8) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, by H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A drawing our attention to various enactments, amendments
brought in by the Punjab Government as well as the earlier orders
of this Court, contended that Amendment Act 8 of 1995 and the
Notification are null and void and cannot be sustained. According
to him, in spite of the specific grounds particularly that the
B Amendment Act nullifies the judgment of this Court, the High r
Court failed to take note of the same and committed an error in .•
not adverting to any of their challenge. f ,
... )-
9) In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, it
is useful to refer the impugned order passed by the High Court
C which is as under:

"We heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted
case that the allotment in favour of Savitri Devi was
cancelled by the High Court on account of the judgment of
I,..
the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur r
D
vs. Malwinder Singh & Ors., 1985 P.L.J. 463. to tide over !
the effect of the judgment, an amendment was made in
the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
by amendment Act No. 8 of 1995, and by this amendment
all transfers of land made prior to the judgment of the
E Supreme Court had been held to be valid. In this view of
the matter, the basis of the order canceling the allotment
of Savitri Devi no longer subsists. We, therefore, find no
merit in the petition. Dismissed."
F 10) It is relevant to refer the relief prayed for in the writ
petition by the Gram Panchayat. The prayer is as under:
"Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature
of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction,
G as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case quashing
the notification No. 8-LEG/95 dated 8.5.1995 Annexure
P-9 and strike down the provisions of the amendment Act
No.8 of 1995 being ultra vires of the Constitution of India
and violative of the Act as it has set at naught and abrogated
.H the validly rendered judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KUM KALAN v. STATE 697
...... OF PUNJAB & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
•
Court of India and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court A
vide Annexure P-6."
It is clear that after setting out various grounds, the Gram
Panchyat has prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash the
Notification dated 8.5.1995 and also to strike down the
Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995 as ultra vires of the Constitution 8
~ of India as well as the earlier judgment of this Court.
•·
11) In the impugned judgment, after merely recording the
fact of Amendment Act No. 8of1995 was brought in the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and concluding c
that the basis of the order canceling the allotment of Savitri Devi
no longer.subsists', dismissed the writ petition filed by the Gram
Panchayat. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the Gram Panchayat, the High Court has not
considered the relief/challenge made in the writ petition. In other
D
words, in the judgment, the High Court has not dealt with the
point in issue, namely, whether the Amendment dated 8.5.1995
(Amendment Act No. 8 of 1995) made by the State of Punjab
has been validly made or not. The abovementioned order of the
High Court goes to show that practically no reason was indicated
with reference to the challenge to the Amendment Act. The E
dismissal of the writ petition in such summary manner without
adverting to their relief prayed for without in9icating any reason
is clearly indefensible. This Court in series of decisions held
.. ;.ii( that reasons introduce clarity in an order and failure to cons.icier
the relief/challenge in the writ petition ·and the absence of F
reasons render the High Court judgment unsustainable. In view
of the fact that the High Court has not considered the challenge
as to the validity or otherwise of the Amendment Act and the
Notification thereon, we have no other option except to set aside
the impugned order and remit the same to the High Court for G
fresh disposal.

12) In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh disposal
in accordance with law by a reasoned order, particularly, with
H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A reference to challenge made in the writ petition. We make it
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case. Inasmuch as the Gram Panchyathas approached the
High Court as early as in 19E}6, we request the High Court to
dispose ofthewritpetition as expeditiously as possible not later
s than 30.8.2008.
13) The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned
above. There shall be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
c

I
'

,,_