JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—There is a notified area committee in Jawalamukhi town of Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra from the year, 1974. Navratra fairs are held annually at Jawalamukhi and several pilgrims visit the holy town of Jawalamuki during these Navratra fairs. Previously District Board Kangra had the authority and control over various areas of district Kangra and the Punjab District Board Act, 1983 (hereinafter the Act. of 1983) was applicable to Jawalamukhi. Subsequently Panchayat Phagan was established and area of Jawalamuki fell within this Panchayat Phagan. Then a Panchayat Samiti known as Panchayat Samiti Dehra Gopipur (petitioner) was constituted under the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act of I960 and Panchayat area of Jawalamuki (Phagan) fell within the jurisdiction of the petitioner No. I. The District Boards were abolished under section 118 of t e Act of 1961 and the assets vesting in the District Boards and all liabilities subsisting against it on the date of abolition, were to devolve on the Panchayat Samitia functioning in the District or on the Zila Parishads thereof or on both to such extent and in such manner as the Government may by order, direct. Under section 118 (7 of the Act of 1961, an order was issued on 13-2-962 (Annexure A) by which it was ordered that the Deputy Commissioner will on behalf of the Government make the actual apportionment and allocation of assets and liabilities between the Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samities and according to the schedule to Annexure A the petitions No. 1 was held entitled to the assets pertaining to Navratra fairs at Jawalamukhi The petitioner No. 1 thus started organising Navratra fairs at Jawalamukhi from 1962 onwards. A notification, dated 10-1-1974 (Annexure 4C) was issued on behalf of the Governor to the effect that under section 256 of the Himachal Pradesh municipal Act. 1968 (hereinafter the Municipal Act) the Governor is pleased to declare the local area of Jawalamukhi as a Notified Area Committee with the result that instead of there being a Panchayat in Jawalamukhi a Notified Area Committee came into existence. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra issued a letter, dated 22-3-1971 (Annexure F) directing the petitioner not to manage the fairs of Jawalamukhi or realise the Mela fees in future and further ordered that the Notified Area Committee Jawalamukhi is authorised to release the Mela fees, etc. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra issued a letter, dated 22-3-1971 (Annexure F) directing the petitioner not to manage the fairs of Jawalamukhi or realise the Mela fees in future and further ordered that the Notified Area Committee Jawalamukhi is authorised to release the Mela fees, etc. The Chairman of the petitioner, sent a reply claiming that the right to realise the Mela fees, etc. during the Navratra fairs of Jawalamukhi vested with the petitioner No. 1. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner No. 1 and its Chairman have now challenged the notification, dated 10-1-1974 declaring Jawalamukhi to be a notified area and the orders, dated 12-2-1975/22-3-1975 by which the petitioner No. 1 has been directed not to realise the Mela fees, etc. It is alleged that the notification declaring Jawalamukhi as a notified area is illegal and unwarranted and the fairs at Jawalamukhi can only be arranged and managed by petitioner No. 1. The Notified Area Committee has no concern with the arranging or managing these fairs. They further allege that the Notified Area Committee should be directed not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners. 3. The petition is contested by the respondents who admit that previously Jawalamukhi was within the jurisdiction of District Board, Kangra, and subsequently it came within the jurisdiction of petitioner No. 1. They also admit that Jawalamukhi was declared to be a Notified Area Committee and this Notified Area Committee functioning and making proper and adequate arrangements for the Navratra fairs. They allege that the petition is mela fide and not sustainable. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Navratra fairs of Jawalamukhi were within the purview of "assets", which were allocated to the petitioner No. I. The petitioner No. 1 had an exclusive authority of managing the Navratra fairs and this right could not be taken away by any legislation, etc. It was contended that the petitioner No. 1 had vested rights of ownership in this property and the Notified Area Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to hold or arrange the Navratra fairs at Jawalamukhi. The learned Counsel argued that the petitioners should be allowed to hold the Navratra fairs and collect fees during these fairs. 6. It was contended that the petitioner No. 1 had vested rights of ownership in this property and the Notified Area Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to hold or arrange the Navratra fairs at Jawalamukhi. The learned Counsel argued that the petitioners should be allowed to hold the Navratra fairs and collect fees during these fairs. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that after the coming into force of the Notified Area Committee, the petitioner No. 1 ceased to have any rights and had no authority to arrange or manage the Navratra fairs at Jawalamukhi. The arranging or managing of the fairs was not an asset or property. 7. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. Section 118 of the Act of 1961 reads as follows :— "118- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Punjab District Boards Act, 1883 or any other law for the time being in force the Government may, by notification, abolish any district board in the State with effect from such date as may be specified therein. (2) On the abolition of a district board under sub-section (1), all assets vesting in it and all liabilities subsisting against it on the date of abolition under the aforesaid Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall devolve on the Panchayat Samiti functioning in the district or on the Zila Parishads thereof or on both to such extent and in such manner as the Government may by order direct. (3) Thus according to section 118 (2) the assets of the district board could devolve upon the Panchayat Samitis. 9. The petitioner is a Panchayat Samit for development block Dehra Gopipur of District Kangra under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter the Act of 1968) and has jurisdiction over the block area. 10. Section 61 of the Act of 1968 reads as follows :— "61. (1) The Government may, by notification direct that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, there shall be constituted Panchayat Samitis for every block in a district. 10. Section 61 of the Act of 1968 reads as follows :— "61. (1) The Government may, by notification direct that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, there shall be constituted Panchayat Samitis for every block in a district. (2) Every Panchayat Samiti shall, by the name of block for which it is constituted, be a body-corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and shall, by the said name, sue or be sued. (3) If, after a Panchayat Samiti is constituted for a block under sub-section (1), the block is redelimited, the Government may reconstitute a Panchayat Samiti for the redelimited block under the provisions of that sub-section." There is no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is a corporate body having perpetual succession and is empowered to acquire, hold and dispose of the property. According to the schedule to Annexure ‘A the petitioner No. 1 was authorised to hold the Navratra fair at Jawalamukhi. Under section 98 of the Act of 1968, the petitioner No. 1 could also make arrangements for carrying out the requirements of the area under its jurisdiction in respect of the organisation and management of fairs. Section 98 of the Act of 1968 reads as follows: — "98 (1) The Panchayat Samiti may, in the prescribed manner, make arrangements for carrying out the requirements of area under its jurisdiction, in respect of the following matters, namely :— 1. Agriculture. 2. Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. 3 to 6 7. Miscellaneous— (i) to (ix) (x) organisation and management of fairs, agricultural shows and industrial exhibitions. (xi) to (xvii) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may after the commencement of this Act, by a specific order, direct a Panchayat Samiti to provide for and make arrangements for carrying out requirements of the area under its jurisdiction in respect of all or any of the matters enumerated in sub-section (1) or any other matter not set out in sub-section (1)." Section 62 of the Act of 1968, however, excludes the jurisdiction/authority of a Panchayat Samiti over the areas which are included in a notified area committee. Section 62 of the Act of 1968 reads as follows : - "62, A Panchayat Samiti shall have authority throughout the block for which it is constituted : Provided that it shall not have authority over any part of the block as is for the time being included in a municipality or a cantonment or a notified area, or a small town committee." 11. Now Jawalarnukhi was declared to be a notified area by a notification (Annexure C), dated 10-1-1974. Therefore, from 10-1-1974 according to the proviso to section 62 of the Act of 1968, the petitioner No. 1 can have no authority over any part of Jawalamukhi area, The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the notification declaring Jawalamukhi to be a notified area committee and he was right in doing so because under section 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 (hereinafter the Municipal Act) the State Government is authorised to declare by a notification an area to be a notified area. This decision of the State Government is final and a publication in the official Gazette of a notification declaring an area to be a notified area is conclusive proof of such decision under section 2:6 (4) of the Municipal Act. Various sections of the Municipal Act were also made applicable to the notified area committee Jawalamukhi by a notification dated 10-1-1974 (Annexure D). After 10-1-1974 the petitioners therefore ceased to have authority/jurisdiction over the areas of Jawalamukhi and the municipal funds can be utilised for holding (fairs and industrial exhibitions. Section 197 of the Municipal Act also empowers the notified area committee to levy small fees, etc. on each person attending a fairs on which the committee incurs expenditure under section 5(2) (j) of the Municipal Act and also from persons exposing goods fur sale and all persons plying any occupation for gain (except water carriers, scavengers and others employed in connection with the fair) for defraying the cost of sanitary arrangements, watch and ward and the like. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the right to arrange and manage the fairs vests with the petitioner No 1 only cannot be accepted in view of the proviso to section 62 of the Act of 1968. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the right to arrange and manage the fairs vests with the petitioner No 1 only cannot be accepted in view of the proviso to section 62 of the Act of 1968. The petitioners have lost authority over these areas when the same were declared to be notified area committee and the right of arranging and managing of fairs on such areas cannot remain vested with the petitioners and such a right cannot be exercised over the property of others, Further the Navratra fair in Jawalamukhi is a traditional fair which is being held from time immemorial. To arrange and manage this traditional fair cannot be said to be a vested right of the petitioners. The petitioner No 1 also cannot claim any right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution because the petitioner is not a citizen and this position was not contested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 12. As the petitioners have no authority or jurisdiction over the land within the notified area committee limits of Jawalamukhi, therefore, the petitioners cannot be held entitled to arrange or manage the Navratra fair in the notified area committee of Jawalamukhi. The Deputy Commissioner Kangra was justified in issuing the letter, dated 22-3-1975 (Annexure F) to the Chairman of the petitioner No. 1 asking him not to manage the Jawalamukhi fair or realise any fees from the pilgrims, etc. in future. 13. As a result of the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the present petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.