Mahender Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Petitioners, who are residents of village Ahulana, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, are aggrieved of the order of the Circle Revenue Officer, as also against order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in appeal, whereby their objections in regard to formation of wards in village Ahulana have been dismissed.

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was enforced on 22.4.1994 and under the same, the rules called as Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (in short, the Rules) were notified in August, 1994. Rule 4 of the Rules provides the matter to be taken into consideration in formation of wards, and while forming the wards in the case of Gram Panchayat, two points, with which presently we are concerned, are to be taken into consideration. Those are:

"(1) Each Panchayat area shall be divided into as many wards as the number of seats for Panches, in such manner that the population of each ward as far as practicable, shall be the same throughout the Sabha Area; and

(2) The wards in Sabha area shall be demarcated keeping in view the compactness of houses on ground......."

The list of wards as determined under the Rules, was published by the Circle Revenue Officer. The petitioner having felt aggrieved of the list and as provided under the Rules, filed objections before the Circle Revenue Officer, who dismissed the same. It appeal, order of Circle Revenue Officer has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur. The Motion Bench on 1.12.1994, had stayed the elections to Gram Panchayat. The orders have been impugned in this writ petition, primarily on the ground that the principle of compactness of houses on ground was completely and grossly violated while forming the ward. It has also been stated that the objections .and also the appeal filed, were rejected without application of mind and without taking into consideration the objections taken by petitioner, Mahender Singh.

Neither the counsel for the petitioners nor counsel for the respondents has placed on record the order of Circle Revenue Officer. Only the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) has been placed on record. A reading of order passed in appeal (Annexure P-4) and the objections filed by petitioner, Mahender Singh, on 13.9.1994 (Annexure P-3) shows that the objections raised in regard to formation of wards in village Ahulana were not dealt with properly by the Authority passing the order. The plan which has been annexed with the petition shows that compactness of the houses, which were required to be taken into consideration at the time of demarcating the wards, has not been taken into consideration. However, in the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be proper if the matter is sent back to the Circle Revenue Officer for deciding the objections (Ann. P.3) afresh, and in case the petitioners are able to satisfy the Circle Revenue Officer that the wards have not been demarcated keeping in view the compactness of houses on ground as alleged in the objections, the same would be demarcated again.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that order passed by the Circle Revenue Officer as well as order dated 20.9.1994 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur, shall stand set aside with a direction to the Circle Revenue Officer to decide objections dated 13.9.1994 afresh in the light of observations made in this order.

Parties are directed to appear before the Circle Revenue Officer on 24.2.1995.