JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J.:- This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in the proceedings registered as C.W.P. No.1319 of 1984. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition has been dismissed. One of the writ petitioner, Krishan Kumar has filed this appeal impleading the other writ-petitioners as proforma respondents. Service of notice on respondents No. 7, 10 and 14 could not be effected as the said respondents have died during the pendency of the L.P.A. However, in view of the fact that the appellant and the proforma respondents No.6 to 14 were the writ petitioners and are the legal heirs of one Late Kanha Ram, we do not find any impediment in the disposal of appeal in the absence of the legal heirs of the proforma respondents No. 7,10 and 14. 2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purpose of the present appeal are stated below : 3. Late Kanha Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant and the proforma respondents No.6 to 14, filed a suit before respondent No.3 i.e. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani for a declaration that he is the owner of land measuring 15 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Palwas, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and for a further declaration that mutation No.1602 dated 15.5.1954 in favour of the Gram Panchayat Palwas (respondent No.4) is illegal. The aforesaid suit which was filed on 3.10.1978 was dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 15.10.1980, on the ground that the same was time barred, the same having been filed 24 years subsequent to the date of mutation granted to the Gram Panchayat i.e. 15.5.1954. The appeal against the said order was rejected on 25.2.1981, and thereafter the revision filed before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, was also dismissed on 28.11.1983. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the legal heirs of late Kanha Ram instituted the writ petition out of which this appeal had arisen. In the writ petition filed it was contended that though the suit filed by late Kanha Ram on 3.10.1978 was time barred, yet by virtue of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act,1980 (hereinafter referred as “ the Amendment Act”) specifically Section 13-A as amended, the suit ought to have been treated as one filed within limitation. In the writ petition filed it was contended that though the suit filed by late Kanha Ram on 3.10.1978 was time barred, yet by virtue of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act,1980 (hereinafter referred as “ the Amendment Act”) specifically Section 13-A as amended, the suit ought to have been treated as one filed within limitation. The provisions of Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act were also pressed into service on behalf of the writ petitioners to contend that the suit filed by late Kanha Ram could not be treated as time barred, inasmuch as he was in cultivating possession of the land on the date of commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1953 and the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1954. 5. Both the grounds urged on behalf of the writ petitioners did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who took the view that under Section 13-A (as brought in by the amendment), a suit for adjudication as to whether any particular land is shamlat deh or not, could be brought within two years of the date of amendment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Haryana Amendment Act,1980. The learned Single Judge also took the view that the suit filed by late Kanha Ram for declaration was not for the purpose contemplated by Section 13-A and furthermore that Section 13-A does not revive a cause of action which had become time barred. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended before us that though the suit filed by late Kanha Ram on 3.10.1978 was time barred, yet by virtue of the provisions of Section 13-A of the Amendment Act, a period of two years having been allowed, the appellate or the revisional authority, ought to have revived the suit and directed for adjudication of the same on merits. This being the sole contention advanced before us at the hearing, it is the above question that would require an answer from the Court in the present appeal. 7. This being the sole contention advanced before us at the hearing, it is the above question that would require an answer from the Court in the present appeal. 7. Section 13-A of the Amendment Act is in the following terms : Adjudication-(1) Any person or in the case of a Panchayat, either the Panchayat or its Gram Sachiv, the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Social Education and Panchayat Officer or any other officer duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf, claiming right, title or interest in any land or other immovable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act, may within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands ( Regulation ) Haryana Amendment Act,1980 file a suit for adjudication, whether such land or other immovable properties shamlat deh or not and whether any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act, in the Court of the Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the area within such land or other immovable property is situate. (2) The procedure for deciding the suits under Section (1) shall be the same as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.” 8. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the Amendment Act, would go to show that a suit for adjudication as to whether any land or immovable property is shamlat deh or not and whether any other land or immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Panchayat, can be filed within two years of coming into force of the Amendment Act. The provisions of Section 13-A clearly and unambiguously provides only for filing of suits claiming the reliefs set out therein within a period of two years from the date of the Amendment Act. There is no provision nor any can be read or implied in Section 13-A to revive a cause of action, which has already been adjudicated. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to point out the inequities that would occur if such a view is taken. There is no provision nor any can be read or implied in Section 13-A to revive a cause of action, which has already been adjudicated. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to point out the inequities that would occur if such a view is taken. If any inequitable situation is to result by operation of the Amendment of the Act incorporating Section 13-A, the said provision should have been put to challenge by the appellant. In the absence of any such challenge, it will not be open for the Court to read in the provisions of the statute what has not been provided for by the legislature. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, therefore, not acceptable. 9. A suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of mutation does not appear to be contemplated by Section 13-A of the Amendment Act. At best, the remedy of an aggrieved party could be by way of revision under Section 13-B of the Act as it then existed. The appellant did not avail of the said remedy in the first instance. In so far as Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act is concerned, a reading of the said provision indicates that the same had been enacted to save some of the rights which a person had acquired on the date of commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands ( Regulation) Act,1953 and Pepsu Village Common Lands ( Regulation ) Act,1954. The said section does not provide any period of limitation. Obviously the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act will have no application to the present case, inasmuch as the suit filed by late Kanha Ram was for declaration of ownership and cancellation of mutation and not for protection of any pre-existing right. 10. In view of the above discussions, and for the reasons recorded, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The L.P.A, therefore, is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. --------------