1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R (1) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2171/2007 (Hakam Singh Vs. District Collector, and Ors.) (2) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3121/2007 (Ishwari Devi and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.) Date of Order : 07/07/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. G.R.Goyal and Mr. H.S.Sandhu for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Bhati for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in both these writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. District Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer and Ors. 2008 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 396 and therefore, the matter may be finally heard and decided at the orders stage. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are heard and decided at the orders 2 stage. Since both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are heard and decided together. The facts stated in the Writ Petition No. 2171/07 are taken to decide the controversy raised in both the petitions. The Union of India allotted 25 bighas of agriculture land in Square No.74 of Chak 155 Tehsil Sri Karanpur district Sri Ganganagar in the year 1953 and on 20.10.1959 Sanad was issued. Thereafter, it appears that the Settlement Officer appointed a receiver on 22.7.1981. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order appointing receiver, preferred an appeal before Additional Collector cum Prescribed Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar and the Prescribed Settlement Commissioner, Srigangangar allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.2.1982. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.1982, the State preferred a revision before the District Collector cum Prescribed Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar and the revision came to be allowed by the District Collector, Sriganganagar vide order dated 19.6.2000. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2000, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order impugned dated 18.9.2006 on the ground that the Central Legislature has repealed the Displaced Persons (Compensation of Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Hence, these writ 3 petitions. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even by repeal, the rights and liabilities accrued to the parties have been saved as has been held by Single Bench of this Court in Bunch of writ petitions being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.219/06 and five other writ petitions decided on 21.8.2006. Considering the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, this Court held that in view of the express provisions of General Clauses Act, the proceeding which is pending cannot be deemed to have lapsed because that question prejudices all those who are affected and in that view of the matter, the stand of the State Government cannot be accepted and the proceedings which are pending shall continue till their decision in accordance with law. The Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. District Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer and Ors. (supra) held that so far as the question of lapsing of proceedings on repeal of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 is concerned, it came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court being D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 840/2006 decided on 12.9.2006. The facts of that case were that the writ petition was filed by one Ladu Ram and others challenging the order of Additional District Collector-cum-Authorized Settlement Commissioner, Sri 4 Ganganagar dated 29.12.2005 and the order of the District Collector-cum-Additional Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 9.1.2006 passed in revision holding that the pending proceedings cannot be continued in view of the fact that the Act of 1954 had been repealed and there is no saving clause hence they lapsed automatically. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the proceedings which are pending under the Act of 1954 at the time of its repeal cannot be deemed to have lapsed. In an appeal against the said judgment, it was contended that in the absence of saving clause the pending proceedings do not survive. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 811. The contention raised therein, came to be rejected by the Division Bench and the Division Bench concluded that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act clearly applies in the case of repeal of an Act and in absence of anything contrary the pending proceedings do not lapse automatically but had to be continued. While allowing the appeal, the Division Bench observed that if any other matters are pending which have not been proceeded after repeal of the Act of 1954 though the same were pending at the time of repeal, shall be proceeded with and decided as early as possible. Thus, the controversy involved in both the writ 5 petitions stands squarely covered by the decision referred herein above and therefore, in my view, the respondent Divisional Commissioner fell in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Act of 1954 has been repealed as it has been held consistently by this Court that even after repeal of the Act, the proceedings pending at the time of repeal of the Act of 1954, are saved by the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and do not lapse automatically but had to be continued. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders impugned are set aside and the proceedings pending before the courts below to proceed till the decision in accordance with law. Stay petitions also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp