ORDER: This revision petition has been filed under Section 118(3) (c) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against an order dated 27.12.1997 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra in appeal No. 107/1996. 2. Before proceedings further, it is noted that Section 118(3) (c) does not provide for an appeal and therefore in the interest of justice, this matter is being treated as a revision petition and is being deposed of accordingly. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh executed a general power of attorney in favour of Smt. Veena Aggarwal, present petitioner and Sh Mohinder Singh Gill. The GPA was got registered before the Sub Registrar Dalhousie as deed No. 22 dated 20-6-89. The Collector, Distt. Chamba on a report of the Collector Sub Division Dalhousie initiated proceedings U/S 118 of the H.P. tenancy & Land Reforms Act 1972 against the present petitioner. Subsequently, the Ld. Collector, vide an order dated 19.6.96, vested the land comprised in Khasra No. 684 measuring 0-01-35 has situated in Mohal Bakrota, The, Bhatiyat, Distt, Chamba, in favour of the State of the H.P. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the div. Commissioner Kangra who rejected same vide order dated 27-12-97 Aggrieved against the said order dated 27-12-97, the petitioners have filed the present appeal which as stated above, is being treated as a revision petition and being decided accordingly. 4. The records of the Courts below as called for and examined, the arguments advanced by the Id. Caused for the parties were heard. 5. Sh. Bimal Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the GPA which has been made the basis for proceeding against the petitioner, was got registered on 20-6-89 when execution of G.PA was not barred under the Act. He further argued that GPA, was barred under the Act. He further argued that GPA, was barred under the Act in the year 1995 when the word "in any other manner" was inserted in section 118 of the Act. He argued that the subsequent amendment cannot have a retrospective effect. He cited "S.T. Officer, Moradabad v/s Oriental Coal Coron. AIR SC. 684". "Dinesh Kumar v/s State of H.P. 1994 SLC (Suppl). 385". "K.C. Arora v/s State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC, 281" and "Rajlnder Singh v/s Jaram Singh, 1993(1) SLC.271." 6. He argued that the subsequent amendment cannot have a retrospective effect. He cited "S.T. Officer, Moradabad v/s Oriental Coal Coron. AIR SC. 684". "Dinesh Kumar v/s State of H.P. 1994 SLC (Suppl). 385". "K.C. Arora v/s State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC, 281" and "Rajlnder Singh v/s Jaram Singh, 1993(1) SLC.271." 6. According to him, the petitions have never proceeded exparte by pasting a coy (copy) of notice on the address where they were not residing. He averred that despite a report on an earlier occasion that the petitioners were residing outside the State, no endeavour was made to serve notice on them at their correct address.. He cited this court in the matter of "Rajinder Singh & other versus Sh. Jaram Singh & others (SLC(1) 271" in this regard. He further argued that a bare perusal of the G.PA. would reveal that no right has been created in favour of the petitioners or that any consideration was passed hands. He also asserted that the owner of the land who has executed the GPA has not been examined. 7. Sh. Sunil Vasudeva, Ld (ADA (Rev) appearing on behalf of the State contented that both the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in revision. He argued that the GPA is irrecoverable and therefore a Benami transaction has taken place. 8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the record, I have arrived at the following conclusion. 9. The GPA was executed by the owner Sh. Joginder Singh in favour of the petitioner on 20.6.89 while the execution of a power of attorney was barred under the Act vide an amendment dated 22 3.1995. It has been held in "S.T. Officer, Moradabad v/s Oriental Coal Coron. AIR SC, 684." "where the statute on its face clearly indicates retrospective effect were intended, there can be no justification to read retrospectively into the amendment made by CL (a) of S.6 of the amending Act which does not contain any words to that effect Further it has been held in Dinesh Kumar v/s state of HP. AIR SC, 684." "where the statute on its face clearly indicates retrospective effect were intended, there can be no justification to read retrospectively into the amendment made by CL (a) of S.6 of the amending Act which does not contain any words to that effect Further it has been held in Dinesh Kumar v/s state of HP. 1994 SLC (suppl.) 385" By now, it is well settled rule of interpretation sanctioned by judicial decisions, that unless the term of the statute expressly so provides or necessarily requires it, retrospective operation should not be given to it so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability other wise then as regards the matter of procedure The general rules, as stated by Halsbury in volume 36 of the Lows of England (3rd Edition) and reiterated in several decision of the Supreme Court of India as well as English Court is that; "All statutes other then those which were merely declaratory of which relate only to matter of procedure of evidence are prima facie prospective." And retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment 10. Further it has been held in "K.C. Arora v/s State of Haryana 1984 (3) SCC, 281 Statute Law- Retroactivity- Amendment of law taking away vested rights with retrospective effect. Held, invalid if violation of the present acquired or accrued fundamental rights of the effected persons. 11. Further it has also been held in Rajinder Singh v/s Jaram Singh 1993(1) SLC. 271". Petitioners had no knowledge about order passed by Sub-Divisional Collector Mode of affecting service nor legally permissible Maintainability of revision petition. 12. Hence the law being land down in clear term by various courts in including the Apex Court this regard, the execution of GPA in the present case cannot be termed to be illegal. As far as the argument of the Ld. ADA, that execution of an irrevocable GPA presumes that a benami transaction has occurred, in fact it could have only been verified after examining the owner of the land who has not been called for by the Ld. Collector. The argument of the Ld. As far as the argument of the Ld. ADA, that execution of an irrevocable GPA presumes that a benami transaction has occurred, in fact it could have only been verified after examining the owner of the land who has not been called for by the Ld. Collector. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that no efforts were made to serve them on their correct addresses also seems to be correct as, despite a report of the process server on 21.8.95 that "Smt. Veena Aggarwal came only for a month during summer and has left for Ludhiana". As regards the petitioner No.2, Shri Mohinder Singh, there is no report of his whereabouts, neither has any efforts been made to serve on him. Despite this a notice was affixed on the same address for 29.3.96 and the petitioner was proceeded against exparte. This action is in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been condemned unheard. The Ld. Commissioner has on his part failed to appreciate the facts of the matter as discussed above. 13. In view of the above findings, I feel that an interference in revision is warranted. The revision petition is accepted. The order dated 27.12.1997 passed by the Ld. Commissioner Kangra Division as well as the order passed by the Collector. Distt. Chamba dated 19.6.1996 are set aside. However the Deputy Commissioner may, if he deems fit, conduct an inquiry into a violation of See. 118 after following due process of law 14. Announced in the open court today the 7th October, 2005. 15. Record of lower court be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.