SAW/848/2006 of DIST.COLLE.CUM CHIEF SETTL.COMMI.and ORS. Vs BHAGAT SINGH and ORS. on 22 December 2006

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.848/06(Chief Settlement Commissioner & Ors. Bhagat Singh & Ors.)

Date of order : 22.12.2006

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. S.K. Vyas, for the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

By judgment under appeal, six writ petitionswere decided by a common order. The question raisedin all these petitions were whether as a result ofrepeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation ofRehabilitation) Act, 1954 - the central enactment, theproceedings pending in respect of provisions of thesaid repealed Act would survive in the light ofSection 6 of General Clauses Act.

While it was pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the non-petitioners-appellants that withthe repeal of the central enactment, all pendingproceeding lapsed. Reliance was placed on the SupremeCourt decision in case of Kolhapur Canesugar WorksLtd. & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC811, which related to omission of Rule 10 and 10A ofCentral Excise Rules, 1944.

In that case, it was laid down that omissionor repeal of Rule is not equated with the repeal ofCentral enactment made by Legislature or regulation asdefined under Section 2 (50) of the General ClausesAct. Section 6 operates only in relation to repeal ofan enactment made by the Legislature or regulations asdefined under Section 2 (50) of the General ClausesAct.

Considering the aforesaid distinction in DBCivil Special Appeal No.840/2006 (Chief SettlementOfficer & Ors. Vs. Ladu Ram & Ors.), decided on12.12.2006, arising from the same judgment, thejudgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheldand the appeal has been dismissed.

In the aforesaid judgment, it has beenfurther observed that the proceedings in connectionwith which appeal was carried by the petitioners andwas subjected to revision before the Collector cumChief Settlement Officer really arose in respect ofthe directions to bring the land records to accordwith the 'sanad' issued under the provisions of theAct of 1954 but the proceedings in fact did not relateor pending under the Act of 1954. The maintenance ofthe land records to accord with possession of validtitle is governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Actand Tenancy Act, may be the source of grant of titlebe the Act of 1954.

arun

In view of the aforesaid Bench decision,holding the judgment under appeal arising out of theanother connected writ petition decided by the samejudgment, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed inlimine.

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. (RAJESH BALIA), J.