IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 182 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2011 Sadhu and others .... APPELLANTS Versus The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Deipa Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 263 of 1988), filed by the appellants, challenging the order dated 6.10.1987, passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, remanding the matter, after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla; as well as the order dated 24.11.1987, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, dismissing the revision petition against the said order dated 6.10.1987, has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Collector has remanded the case to the Assistant LPA No. 182 of 2011 -2- Collector Ist Grade, after observing that in the order dated 21.3.1986, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, had not made it clear as to which of 25% of the land will be kept for the Panchayat, and even khasra numbers were not given. According to the learned counsel, remand of the case on the aforesaid ground was beyond the scope of the statute. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has observed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after the remand, is not only required to decide whether excess land was assigned for the Gram Panchayat or not, but during the pendency of the writ petition, amendments were made in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and those amendments are also to be taken into consideration. In this regard, learned counsel argued that some of the amendments are prospective in nature and the same will not effect the rights, already accrued to the appellants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in his submissions. In our opinion, in case the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after considering all the submissions made by the respective parties, decides the issue involved, no prejudice will be caused to the appellants. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, we make it clear that it will be open for the appellants to raise all the points, including the prospectiveness and retrospectiveness of a particular amendment, before the Assistant Collector LPA No. 182 of 2011 -3- Ist Grade, and the authorities will take the decision without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 01, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE