1993 (3) TMI 362 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974.
2. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1981.
3. Jurisdiction of civil courts over matters related to 'shamilat deh'.
4. Legislative competence to enact laws retrospectively affecting judicial decisions.

Summary:

1. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974:
The High Court found the provisions of section 13A(3) of the Amendment Act of 1974 to be unconstitutional for conferring "arbitrary and unguided powers" on the Assistant Collector, which could lead to discrimination. Consequently, sub-section (3) of section 13-A and other sub-sections were declared ultra vires the Constitution. The State of Haryana appealed against this judgment, but the Amendment Act of 1981, which substituted the controversial provisions, rendered these appeals infructuous.

2. Constitutionality of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1981:
The High Court held that the retrospective abrogation of the jurisdiction of civil courts by the Amendment Act of 1981 amounted to a trenching upon judicial power by the legislature. The relevant part of section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1981, which fictionally substituted section 13 with effect from 4th May 1961, was declared unconstitutional and struck down.

3. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Over Matters Related to 'Shamilat Deh':
Section 13 of the principal Act, as substituted by the Amendment Act of 1981, barred civil courts from entertaining or adjudicating upon questions related to whether any land or immovable property is 'shamilat deh' or vests in a Panchayat. The High Court found that this provision, insofar as it sought to nullify civil court decrees retrospectively, was unconstitutional.

4. Legislative Competence to Enact Laws Retrospectively Affecting Judicial Decisions:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that while the legislature has the power to legislate retrospectively, it cannot render ineffective earlier judicial decisions by simply declaring them invalid. The Haryana State Legislature's attempt to disregard civil court decrees through the Amendment Act of 1981 was deemed unconstitutional as it encroached upon judicial power. The provisions of the Amendment Act of 1981 can operate prospectively without disturbing the finality of earlier adjudications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Haryana, upholding the High Court's view that the retrospective provisions of the Amendment Act of 1981, which sought to nullify judicial decisions, were unconstitutional. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.