Judgement Consolidated Appeals (No. 97 of 1938) from five judgments and decrees of the High Court (March 5, 1936), affirming the judgments and decrees of the District Judge at Mianwali (May 28, 1934), in five second appeals. In the first four appeals the District Judge had affirmed the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Mianwali, who had in each case dismissed the plaintiffs (appellants) suit, while in the fifth appeal he had affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, at Bhakkar, who had also dismissed the plaintiffs (appellants) suit. In the suits out of which the first two of these appeals arose the plaintiffs (appellants), proprietors of land, basing their claim on a wajib-ul-arz of 1878, prepared at the time of the First Regular Settlement, alleged that they had acquired Adna Malkiat rights in the shamilat (waste land) broken by them in the village Malana, Tahsil Bhakkar, in the District of Mianwali, and they claimed a declaration to that effect. The plaintiffs (appellants) in the third and fourth appeals claimed a similar declaration in respect of certain lands forming part of the village shamilat in the villages Mauza Noon, Tahsil Bhakkar, aforesaid; and the plaintiff (appellant) in the fifth appeal claimed a similar declaration in respect of certain lands forming part of the village shamilat in the village Noon, Tahsil Bhakkar, aforesaid. The issue in each appeal was whether the appellants were entitled to such a declaration, and turned upon the effect of agreements made under the Sind-Sagar Doab Colonisation Act, 1902, between the various proprietors in the villages in question and the Government, and upon entries in the wajib-ul-arz of the villages at the time of the Second and Third Regular Settlements, made in 1902 and 1926 respectively, which recorded the agreements. The respondents in each case were Adna Maliks (superior owners) of the respective villages. The facts, and the terms of the Act of 1902 and of the agreements appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. In each of the five suits the Subordinate Judges dismissed the suit on the ground that no one was entitled to acquire Adna Malkiat rights under the wajib-ul-arz of 1878 so long as the Sind-Sagar Doab Colonisation Act of 1902 remained in force ; and that persons who broke the waste land during that period were merely tenants-at-will. In each of the five suits the Subordinate Judges dismissed the suit on the ground that no one was entitled to acquire Adna Malkiat rights under the wajib-ul-arz of 1878 so long as the Sind-Sagar Doab Colonisation Act of 1902 remained in force ; and that persons who broke the waste land during that period were merely tenants-at-will. On appeal, the District Judge at Mianwali affirmed the decree of the lower court in each case, and dismissed the appeal. The High Court (Coldstream and Bhide JJ.), on second appeal, dismissed all five appeals on the ground that the only question involved was covered by the judgment of the High Court (Coldstream and Jai Lai JJ.) in Ahmad Khan v. Jiwana Ram (( 1935) 38 P. L. R. 133.), which had been consistently followed in subsequent cases. 1940. Nov. 4, 5. Robert Ritson for the appellants. The respondents were not represented. Dec. 2. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Atkin. These are consolidated appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, who affirmed a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Mianwali, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs so far as the present dispute is concerned. The plaintiffs are some of the proprietors in various villages in the Mianwali District. According to the respective village wajib-ul-arz prepared at the time of the first settlement in 1878 a proprietor had the right, under certain conditions, to reclaim the shamilat (waste land) of the village, and become Adna Maliks of the land. The plaintiffs claim that in the last thirty years they have reclaimed such land in their respective villages, and are entitled to the rights stated in the relevant wajib-ul-arz. But the original position as defined in 1878 was altered in consequence of a scheme of the Government of the Punjab to make a canal in the Sind-Sagar Doab for the purpose of irrigating tracts in that district. In furtherance of the scheme the Sind-Sagar Doab Colonisation Act was passed in 1902. Amongst other previsions it empowered the Government to make agreements between proprietors in the district for the surrender of their lands to the Government on condition that they would receive back an area equal to one-fourth in the improved land. Such surrenders, however, were only to take effect on and from the date on which the excavation of the proposed canal should be begun. Such surrenders, however, were only to take effect on and from the date on which the excavation of the proposed canal should be begun. In 1901, after the Act had received the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor, agreements were entered into by the proprietors of all the lands in the villages in question for the surrender of the lands on the statutory terms. The agreement contained the term that from the date of the agreement up to the date of the surrender no one should, notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary, acquire or be considered entitled to either proprietary or occupancy tenancy rights in the said lands. So far the agreement was with the Government, but at the second regular settlement in 1902 the wajib-ul-arz in each case records the agreement between the villagers in this form, " We, the proprietors of the village, have " signed the agreement under the Sind-Sagar Doab Act, I. of " 1902.....No one can acquire proprietary rights in the "village shamilat until then " The same agreement is recorded in the wajib-ul-arz prepared at the third regular settlement in 1926. No one disputes that all the parties were bound at the time by the agreements so recorded in the respective wajib-ul-arz, whose function in the Punjab, at least, is, amongst other things, to record village agreements of this kind. The project of the canal, however, was never carried into effect. The excavation was never begun ; and in 1929, when the scheme had been finally abandoned, the Sind-Sagar Act of 1902 was repealed (Act VI. of 1929). The plaintiffs claim that by reason of the repeal the rights as in 1878 revived, and must be taken never to have been affected. They had in fact during the interim period been engaged in reclaiming waste lands, and they now seek to enjoy the rights to become proprietors of the lands so reclaimed as though the various agreements had not been made. The Act, it is said, once repealed, is to be taken never to have been passed. They had in fact during the interim period been engaged in reclaiming waste lands, and they now seek to enjoy the rights to become proprietors of the lands so reclaimed as though the various agreements had not been made. The Act, it is said, once repealed, is to be taken never to have been passed. One sufficient answer to this contention is that the effect of repeal is now determined in the Punjab by the Punjab General Clauses Act, I. of 1898, s. 4, which provides that unless a different intention appears repeal shall not (b) " affect the " previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything "duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, "privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred "under any enactment so repealed." But, apart altogether from the effect of repeal, the agreements recorded in the second and third wajib-ul-arz operate independently of the Act. They expressly determine the rights of the parties during a known period of transition. Until the surrender under the Government agreement the parties agree that the ordinary rights are not to operate. The plaintiffs must be held to their agreement; a result which is the more clearly just because, as pointed out by the Courts in India, the other proprietors acting on their agreement have lost rights of preventing the plaintiffs from acquiring the rights over the land that they now claim. Their Lordships find themselves in agreement with the reasons given by the Subordinate Judge in these cases, and by the High Court in their judgment in a previous case of Ahmad Khan v. Jiwana Ram (( 1935) 38 P. L. R. 133.), dated January 15, 1935, which was pronounced on a similar claim, and which they followed in the present case. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that these appeals be dismissed. The respondents entered an appearance, but did not lodge a printed case, nor were they represented at the hearing. The appellants must pay such costs as the respondents have properly incurred.