Fudeda Gram Panchayat vs Rampura Gram Panchayat and Others

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Panchayat under Articles 14, 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and also under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to quash and set aside the order passed by the Dy. Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Rural Housing Development and Rural Development Department, dated 1.6.1999 at Annexure-I on the grounds stated in the petition. Heard learned advocate Shri J.V. Japee for the petitioner, learned advocate Shri B.N. Patel for respondent No. 1 and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for respondents Nos. 3-4.

The issue involved in this matter is with regard to the amount or the share of the forest produce after forestation in the land of the petitioner panchayat. As reflected in the order, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are separate panchayats and in 1972-73 Fudeda Group Gram Panchayat was divided into two gram panchayats, Fudeda Gram Panchayat and Rampura Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 1 herein. Thus, the land or gaucher area of Fudeda Gram Panchayat was divided and on the division and bifurcation it would have to be marked as two separate gram panchayats. As reflected in the impugned order, there was forestation programme for growing Nilgiri trees and even after bifurcation of the two gram panchayats, proper clarification with regard to the revenue or the sharing of the land and other properties or assets has not been made. At the same time, it is observed that when the two gram panchayats were made, the total area or lands including the gaucher was a joint property. Nilgiri trees which were grown by the Forest Department pursuant to the programme of forestation, the Collector and the Deputy Conservator of Forests in the meeting held on 3.6.1996 had agreed and decided that whatever the amount which is realised from the sale of the forest produce, etc. has to be divided between the two gram panchayats equally.

It is in this background the contentions which are raised are required to be considered. It is required to be mentioned that the petitioner panchayat has not pointed out about the maintainability of the petition that under which provision the petition is filed and how the petitioner under Articles 14 & 226 would be maintainable with regard to the issues which have been raised. The learned advocate has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provision either of the Gujarat Panchayats Act or the Bombay Land Revenue Code. On the contrary, the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code clearly provide for the various produce and the entitlement thereof to be used for the benefit of the State. Since the two gram panchayats have come into existence on the division of Fudeda Gram Panchayat, necessary consequences will follow and it is for the Government to take appropriate decision with regard to division of the area and formation of the gram panchayats. In fact, such decisions are taken according to the provision of the Gujarat Panchayats Act in public interest so as to subserve the ultimate goal of better administration of local self-government and the interest of the local public. Therefore, merely because the order is passed to divide the realisation of the forest produce equally between the two gram panchayats, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 1, it cannot be a subject-mater of the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India when there is no breach or violation of any statutory provision, nor the order could be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

Therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained and it deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. The amount invested by the petitioner panchayat with the nationalised bank from out of the forest produce shall be apportioned in equal portion by respondent No. 2, DDO. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. After the order was dictated, learned advocate Shri Japee has requested for stay of the operation of the order without any justification. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and in light of the discussion made hereinabove, the request is turned down.