ORDER
1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order dt. 20th July, 1984, passed by the District Development. and Panchayat Officer, Rupnagar, exercising the powers of the Collector (Annexure P/3), and the order dt. 26th Feb., 1985, passed by the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Commissioner, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961(Annexure P/4), by which certain land situated in. village Ballamgarh, Tehsil add District Ropar; has been declared as Shamilat land under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, Ballamgarh, and by which the Punjab Government notification dt. 5th Jan., 1973 transferring the management of such land to the Forest Department as `Protected Forest has been declared illegal aitd void; hence not binding on the Gram Panchayat.
2. The proprietors of village Ballamgarh got a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act with the name and style as the Ballamgarh Co-operative Choe Reclamation Society. Ballamgarh, on 30th May, 1941. The members of this Society had one-third share in Patti Albela, Patti Khushala and Patti Gulab, out of Khewat/Khatauni 414/496, as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74(Annexure P/1).
3. In 1947, owners of not less than two-third share of the land in dispute, with a view to conserve forests thereon, represented in writing to the Collector of Ambala district that the said land should be managed on their behalf by the Punjab Government as “Protected Forest” under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Thereupon, by notification dt. 19th May, 1947(Annexure P-1/A) the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 38 of the Indian Forest Act, declared that Ss. 30, 32, 33, 34 and 68 of the said Act shall apply to the land in question detailed in the Schedule annexed to the notification. By another notification; the Governor of Punjab further declared under S. 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act that the said land shall be closed for purposes of regeneration for a period of 25 years or for such a shorter period as may be found sufficient, and as a result thereof rights of private persons in or over the said land shall remain suspended during that period. The aforesaid notification remained in force for a period of 25 years, till it expired in 1972. However, on a written request by the proprietors, of the majority shares of the land specified in the Schedule, the Governor of Punjab once again declared the land in dispute as “Protected Forest” for the purposes of management by the Forest Department of the Punjab Government. and for that purpose issued a similar notification under S. 38 of the Indian Forest Act as was issued 25 years ago in the year 1947. This notification having been issued on 27th Dec., 1972, the period of 25 years will expire in Dec., 1997.
4. The Gram Panchayat of village Ballamgarh, however, felt aggrieved by this transfer of management of the land in dispute and declaration of the land as “Protected Forest”, by virtue of the aforesaid notifications. Accordingly, a claim application was filed dt. 21st Sept., 1977(Annexure P/2), in the Court of Collector, Rupnagar, wherein the legality of the notification dt. 27th Dec., t972, as published in the Punjab Government Gazette dt. 5th Jan., 1973, issued by the Governor and the mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof were challenged. This application came up for hearing ort 20th July, 1984, before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Rupnagar, exercising the powers of the Collector. In reply to the claim application of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner Society filed their written statement in which it had been pleaded that the Punjab Government notification dt. 27th Dec. 1972, was in accordance with law and the Shamilat land belonged to three Pattis, each having one-third share in it. It was further pleaded that under S. 2(g)(5) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, it was the personal property of is Khewatdars who had already got income of the same according to their respective shares in the land in dispute. However, on 15th June. 1984, when the case came up for hearing, the Ballamgarh Society could not appear as that was the period immediately after ‘Operation Blue Star’ in the State of Punjab and it was not possible for the litigants to attend Courts due to deteriorating law and order situation in the State. Despite this, the learned District Development and Panchayat Officer proceeded ex parte and heard arguments of the counsel for the Gram Panchayat on 25th June, 1984. Consequently, on 20th July, 1984, the claim application of the Gram Panchayat was allowed and it was held that the land in dispute was Shamilat land and the Gram Panchayat was its owner. It was further held that Ballamgarh Co-operative Society, petitioner in the present writ petition, had no right in it nor was the said Society to take any income therefrom. Against the aforesaid order of the Collector, dt. 20th July, 1984, the petitioner Society went in appeal before the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Commissioner. under S. 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The learned Joint Director decided the appeal on 26th Feb., 1985, and while agreeing with the Collector that the land in dispute was Shamilat land and the Gram Panchayat alone was its owner, further proceeded to hold that the notification dt. 5th Jan., 1973, issued by the Governor of Punjab, under S. 38 of the Indian Forest Act, was illegal, void and not binding on the Gram Panchayat. It is against this order of the Joint Director Panchayats, passed on 26th Feb., 1985, affirming the order of the Collector, that the petitioner Society has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. S.K. Pipat, learned counsel for the petitioner Society, has vehemently contended that the notification issued under S. 38 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, was in exercise of the statutory powers conferred by the said Act, which powers the Governor of Punjab had exercised in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, the impugned orders being based on the mistaken view regarding illegality of the 1973 notification, the same deserve to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
6. On the other hand, Mr. N.C. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Gram panchayat, Ballamgarh, respondent 3, has pleaded that ignoring the findings and declaration of the Collector and the Commissioner, while passing the impugned orders dt. 20th July, 1984, and 26th Feb., 1985, respectively, this Court should proceed to determine the rights of the parties and to hold that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land in dispute.
7. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, would show that powers are exercised by the State Government under S. 38 of the Indian Forest Act, only on the receipt of a written. request made by a majority of the proprietors or shareholders of the village. Moreover, a strong presumption of legality and correctness is always attached in favour of the notification issued under S. 38 of the Act, which cannot be rebutted in collateral proceedings initiated under some other Act. Therefore, the District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of the Collector, and the Joint Director Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, have no jurisdiction to declare the statutory notification issued under the Indian Forest Act as illegal, null and void or not binding on the Gram Panchayat: Such an order can be passed only by the Court exercising writ jurisdiction or by a Civil Court. The Collector and the Commissioner are only persona designata under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and have a limited task of deciding the disputes arising under that Act. They cannot arrogate to themselves the jurisdiction and powers of pronouncing upon the constitutionality or legality of notifications and orders issued under other statutes, like the Indian Forest Act. In the face of such an illegal finding, the rights of the parties cannot be determined unless the impugned orders are set aside. Any other course is neither permissible in law nor fair to the parties.
8. After hearing the counsel and going through the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on the record, I am of the considered view that both the impugned orders passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of the Collector, and the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Commissioner. under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, Annexures P/3 and P/4, respectively, are without jurisdiction, illegal and null and void. The same are, therefore, quashed. Since the petitioner-Society was proceeded against ex parte before the Collector, the case is remitted back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties:
9. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/- and the parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Ropar, on 14th Sept., 1987.
10. Petition allowed.