HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 1021 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.01.2009. *** Pala Ram Versus State of Haryana and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. *** Present: Shri Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. M/S Sanjeev Gupta and Rajneesh Gupta, Advocates, for respondents No. 5 to 7. Shri Randhir Singh, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana. Shri Anil Sihag, Advocate, for respondent No.8. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition purporting to have been filed in public interest assails, the constitutional validity of Sections 5 and 15(2)(f) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 and Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964. It also assails the correctness of an order dated 6.11.2007 passed by Collector Ist Grade, Assandh whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat Alawanla for removal of the alleged unauthorized occupation of respondents No.5 and 6 from a parcel of land measuring 2 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in Khasra No. 44 Killa No. 15/1 of the said village. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. In so far as the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 5 and 15(2)(f) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 and Rule 12 of the Rules is concerned, we see no reason to entertain the challenge in a public interest petition. In our opinion, challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the statute can be maintained only on the ground of lack of legislative competence or -2- CWP No. 1021 of 2008 violation of any fundamental right vested in the petitioner. None of these two grounds are available to the petitioner in the present writ petition who does allege lack of legislative competence of the legislative that has enacted the statute nor does he claim to be maintaining this petition in his own right for violation of any fundamental right. The challenge to the validity of the provisions of Sections 5 and 15(2)(f) (supra) is, therefore, rejected. That bring us to the question whether the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Assandh under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 suffers from any illegality to warrant interference. It is common ground that the said order is appealable before the prescribed appellate authority under Section 13-B of the Act aforementioned, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. Not only that the Commissioner is in terms of Section 13-B (2) of the Act competent to call for the proceedings of any authority subordinate to him to satisfy himself as to the legality or proprietary of the same and to pass any such order as he may deem fit. Suffice it to say that the impugned order is not only appealable but even revisable under the provisions mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that while the petitioner is willing to resort to the remedy provided under Section 13-B of the Act, he may face difficulty on account of limitation. Counsel appearing for the respondents are however agreeable to the disposal of this writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same on merits as though the appeal had been filed within the period stipulated for the purpose. In the circumstances, therefore, we consider it unnecessary to examine the validity of the order under challenge. We direct that in case the petitioner files an appeal under Section 13-B of the Act, within a period of 30 days -3- CWP No. 1021 of 2008 from today, the competent authority shall entertain and dispose of the same as though, the appeal had been filed within the period stipulated for the purpose. The appellate authority shall also endeavour to expedite the disposal of the appeal as far as possible within a period of six months from the date the appeal is presented. The disposal of this writ petition shall not, however, be taken as expression of any opinion on our part on the merits of the challenge or the contentions urged by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Hemant Gupta) Judge January 13, 2009 Malik