R.P. Sethi, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel for the parties. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ambala, passed u/s
7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before respondent No. 2, who, vide his
order, Annexure P-9, dismissed the same solely on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in the absence of deposit of the amount of penalty.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 1 PLR 614 (FB)
wherein it was held:
The restriction imposed by the proviso renders the substantive clause of conferring a right of appeal a mere paper right. The right of appeal is
rendered nugatory, in effect. The restrictions imposed is stringent. Theoretically, right of appeal is conferred but the ground realities namely poverty
of Indian villagers cannot be lost sight of. The right to prefer an appeal must include the right to defend the right with respect to possession of the
land or immovable property proclaimed by the Gram Panchayat to be vested in it. Atleast one right of appeal against executive fiat is reasonable
procedural right particularly when scrutiny by the ordinary Civil Court has been taken away. Taking conspectus of all the relevant facts and
circumstances, I am of the considered view that the imposition of condition provided by the provisions for deposit of damages before the appeal is
entertained is unreasonableness. The provision is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and unreasonable. Further the
authorities have a right to recover the damages imposed as arrears of land revenue. Keeping all the facts in view and the observations made above,
I am of the considered view that the proviso to Section 5 of the 1992 Act providing for deposit of penal damages for entertaining appeal is ultra
vires the Constitution and the same is declared to be so.
2. In view of the Full Bench Judgment, the respondent No. 2 was not justified in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non-deposit of the
amount of penalty. The order of respondent No. 2, Annexure P-9, is accordingly set aside and the case remanded back to him with the direction
that he shall hear the parties afresh and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned counsel appearing for the
parties are directed to appear or cause the appearance of their clients before respondent No. 2 on 28th July, 1995.