JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.:- By way of this order, we shall answer a reference, dated 15.07.2010, made by one of us (Rajive Bhalla, J.) pertaining to interpretation of the expression “hilly area” as defined in Section 2(bb) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”) and the effect of Section 14- A of the 1961 Act insofar as it relates to the rights of a Gram Panchayat in Shamilat Deh. The reference order dated 15.07.2010, reads as follows: - “The controversy in the present case relates to the interpretation of the expression “hilly area” as defined under Section 2(bb) and the effect of Section 14-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’). The petitioners assert that in view of the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act, the land in dispute though shamilat deh before the enactment of “Shamilat Law” and the 1961 Act, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat, but subject to the conditions set out in Section 14-A of the Act, the petitioners, who are private persons cannot allege any right, title or interest in this land. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat, but subject to the conditions set out in Section 14-A of the Act, the petitioners, who are private persons cannot allege any right, title or interest in this land. Section 2(bb) of the Act reads as follows: - “2(bb) “hilly area” means: - (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) Dharr Kalan Block in Gurdaspur District; (iii) Hoshiarpur, Bajawara, Bhungra, Talwara, Dasuya, Mahilpur, Balachaur and Saroya Block in Hoshiarpur District; (iv) Rupar, Majri, Nurpur Bedi and Anandpur Sahib, Blocks in Rural District” Section 14-A of the Act reads as follows: - 14-A. Saving- Nothing contained in this Act or the shamilat law, shall- (a) affect or shall be deemed ever to have affected any right of the State Government in the land vested or deemed to be vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or (b) entitle or shall be deemed ever to have entitled a Panchayat or any other authority under this Act or the ‘shamilat law’ to exercise any right or to do any act in respect of any land in the “Hilly area” vested or deemed to be vested in the Panchayat whether such land has or has not been declared as a protected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, in contravention of the provisions of that Act or the Rules made thereunder.” A conjoint reading of these statutory provisions appears to prima facie suggest that in “hilly areas” though the land may be described as shamilat deh and may, therefore, vest in a Gram Panchayat but a Gram Panchayat shall not be entitled to “.... exercise any right or do any act in respect of any land in any hilly area.....”. In order to place this opinion in its correct perspective, it would be appropriate to refer to the object and reasons that led to the incorporation of Section 2(bb) and the enactment of Section 14-A of the Act. “The object of this Bill is to make certain provisions in the principal Act which have been found from experience to be necessary for effective administration of this Act. 2. “The object of this Bill is to make certain provisions in the principal Act which have been found from experience to be necessary for effective administration of this Act. 2. According to Section 5 of the Act, where the area of land in Shamilat deh or any village is in excess of 25 percent of the total area of that village then Shamilat deh equivalent to 25 percent of the total area of the village will be used by the Panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Panchayat area, and the remaining area of Shamilat deh will be utilised for the settlement of landless tenants and for distribution among small landowners. Applied to hilly areas this provision will result in land being used in disregard of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act or the Land Preservation Act or the rules made thereunder. Such use of land would also be not in conformity with the National Forest Policy. It is, therefore, proposed that the third proviso to sub-section (1) as also subsections (2) and (3) should not apply in the case of Shamilat lands in hilly areas and such land should not be used by Panchayats in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act.” The question raised in this petition is one of general importance, as large tracts of land in “hilly areas” are subject to similar litigation between Gram Panchayats and the erstwhile proprietors. It would, therefore, be appropriate that this matter is placed before a Division Bench, after obtaining orders in this regard from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.” 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the land, in dispute, is Shamilat Deh but as it is situated within a “hilly area”, the Gram Panchayat is prohibited by Section 14-A of the 1961 Act from exercising any rights with respect to Shamilat Deh. A perusal of the objects and reasons set out in the Amending Act, that introduced Section 14-A(a) and (b), reveals that, the 1961 Act shall not apply to such land thereby clearly postulating that the Gram Panchayat has no right to seek eviction of the petitioners or to exercise any right, title or interest with respect to the land, in dispute. It is further submitted that the clear and unambiguous language used in Section 14-A (a) and (b) of the 1961 Act, specifically excludes such land from the ownership or jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Counsel for the State of Punjab as well as the Gram Panchayat submit that Section 2(bb) of the 1961 Act defines “hilly areas” and Section 14-A(a) and (b) of the 1961 Act merely declare that a Gram Panchayat shall not exercise any right or do any act in respect of land in a “hilly area” in contravention of provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 14-A of the 1961 Act does not adversely affect the proprietary or possessory rights of the Gram Panchayat or prevent the Gram Panchayat from exercising its rights under the 1961 Act. The only impediment to the exercise of these powers is that they shall not be exercised in contravention of provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ arguments, whether based on the objects and reasons or on the provisions of Sections 2(bb) and 14-A of the 1961 Act, are entirely misplaced. The reference may, therefore, be answered by affirming the rights of the Gram Panchayat to seek the petitioners’ eviction. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties, considered their arguments for and against their respective stands and perused Sections 2(bb) and 14-A of the 1961 Act which were introduced into the 1961 Act by Amending Act No.19 of 1964 and sub-clauses (i), (iii) and (iv) of Section 2(bb) of the 1961 Act substituted by Punjab Act No.13 of 1965. The question that essentially calls for an answer is whether Section 14-A of the 1961 Act places any impediment on the rights of a Gram Panchayat in the Shamilat Deh of a village, situated in a hilly area. The petitioners, in our considered opinion, have canvassed an extreme proposition that Section 14-A of the 1961 Act prohibits a Gram Panchayat from exercising any right, including the right to seek eviction from Shamilat Deh, situated in a hilly area. The scheme of the 1961 Act and provisions of Sections 2(bb) and 14-A of the 1961 Act do not lend support to the interpretation sought to be canvassed by counsel for the petitioners. 5. The scheme of the 1961 Act and provisions of Sections 2(bb) and 14-A of the 1961 Act do not lend support to the interpretation sought to be canvassed by counsel for the petitioners. 5. The words and expressions appearing in a statute are to be assigned their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning by adopting the rule of literal interpretation. A statutory provision may, however, be added to, subtracted from, explained or read down if the words and expressions appearing in a statute are vague, lead to an absurd interpretation, tend to nullify legislative intent or require a degree of explanation. 6. Section 2(bb) of the 1961 Act, in its present form, defines “hilly areas” by reference to various blocks of the Districts of Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur and Ropar, in the State of Punjab, but does not contain any provision that may be read to place an impediment on the rights of a Gram Panchayat, in the Shamilat Deh of a village situated in a “hilly area” as Section 2(bb) of the 1961 Act merely defines “hilly area” and nothing more. 7. Section 14-A of the 1961 Act titled as “Saving” commences with a non-obstantive clause and postulates that nothing contained in this Act (i.e., the 1961 Act) and the “Shamilat Law” shall affect the rights of the State Government in land that is vested or deemed to have vested in a Panchayat. Sub-Section (b) of Section 14- A of the 1961 Act provides that the 1961 Act or the “Shamilat Law” shall not entitle or deemed to have ever entitled a Panchayat or any other authority, under the 1961 Act or the “Shamilat Law”, to exercise any right or to do any act in respect of land in a “hilly area” in contravention of provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, whether or not the land has been declared a protected forest. We are unable to discern any ambiguity or confusion in the language used in Section 14- A of the 1961 Act. The words and expressions appearing in Section 14-A of the 1961 Act, in our considered opinion, are neither vague or absurd and, therefore, have to be assigned their ordinary, natural and literal meaning. We are unable to discern any ambiguity or confusion in the language used in Section 14- A of the 1961 Act. The words and expressions appearing in Section 14-A of the 1961 Act, in our considered opinion, are neither vague or absurd and, therefore, have to be assigned their ordinary, natural and literal meaning. Section 14-A of the 1961 does not contain any words or expressions that may be interpreted to prohibit a Gram Panchayat, from exercising rights in Shamilat Deh, as conferred by the 1961 Act, except to the extent that its powers shall not be exercised in contravention of any rights that may have vested in the State Government or in contravention of any provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, whether the said land has or has not been declared a protected forest. The prohibitions enacted by Section 14-A of the 1961 Act do not divest the Gram Panchayat of its rights or place any impediment on the vesting of Shamilat Deh in a Gram Panchayat. Section 14-A of the 1961 Act cannot be read to divest a Gram Panchayat of its rights in Shamilat Deh or its right to seek eviction of unauthorised occupants of Shamilat Deh. A perusal of the objects and reasons reveals that all, that legislature, intended, was to place the aforementioned impediments on the power of a Gram Panchayat and not to divest the Gram Panchayat of its rights conferred by the “Shamilat Law” or the 1961 Act. 8. The reference is, therefore, answered by holding that Shamilat Deh in a “hilly area” shall vest in a Gram Panchayat, as absolute owner, except to the extent that a Gram Panchayat shall not exercise any right that has already vested in the State Government or in such a manner as to contravene any provision of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Sections 2(bb) and 14-A of the 1961 Act, do not support the petitioners’ argument that the words and expressions appearing in Section 14-A of the 1961 Act, prohibit a Gram Panchayat from claiming any right, title or interest in Shamilat Deh situated in a “hilly area” or to prohibit it from seeking eviction of unauthorised occupants of Shamilat Deh. 9. The writ petition alongwith connected petitions be set down for hearing on 13.05.2013, before an appropriate Bench. --------0.B.S.0------------ —————————