State of Haryana and others vs Gram Panchayat, Dera Fateh Singh, Tehsil Gulha and others

J.M. Tandon, J.—This order will dispose of two letters patent appeals, L.P.A. No. 355 of 1975. State of Haryana and others v. Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh and others and L.P.A. No. 317 of 1975 and Gram Panchayat Gumthala Garhu v. Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh, which are directed against the same order of the learned Single Judge, dated May 2, 1975, allowing C.W. No. 23 of 1973, filed by Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh and another.

The facts of the case are that a Sabha area for village Gumthala Garhu was constituted vide Notification u/s 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in 1953. The area of Rectangles Nos. 1 to 301 was included therein. Some people of village Gumthala Garhu set up habitations at some distance from the main village. These habitations were included in Gram Panchayat Gumthala Garhu. The residents of these habitations applied to the Government for constituting a separate Gram Sabha for them. Their request was accepted and consequently the Government excluded the area of Rectangles Nos. 1 to 124 out of the Sabha area of Gumthala Garhu vide Notification dated November 16, 1965, and by another Notification of the same date constituted a new Sabha area namely Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh The area of Rectangles Nos. 1 to 124, which was excluded from Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu was given to Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh. Feeling aggrieved by this action of the Government, Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu challenged it in C.W. No. 336 of 1967, which was dismissed on the basis of some compromise. The block Development and Panchayat Officer issued letter dated March 17, 1972 (copy annexure '' E'') to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh, indicating that Rectangle Nos. 66 and 83, situate in Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh were proposed to be taken out and given to Gram Panchayat Gumthala Garhu. He also addressed another letter dated August 9, 1972 (Copy Annexure ''B'') to Gram Panchayat Secretary, Gumthala Garhu requiring him to get maps prepared with respect to the proposed transfer of the land. The Gram Panchayat Dera Fateh Singh and Fateh Singh, feeling aggrieved by these two letters, challenged the same in the civil writ filed by them and admitted on March 26, 1973. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued two Notifications, (copies of which are Annexure ''F'' and ''F-1''). The area specified in the Notifications was excluded from Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh and included within Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu. The writ petition was amended and challenge was laid to these Notifications as well. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the letters as also the Notifications relating to the exclusion of the area from Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh and inclusion of the same in Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu. It is against this order that two letters patent appeals, one filed by the State of Haryana and the other by Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu, have been directed.

The sole point for consideration in this case is about the competency of the State Government to exclude or include any area from or in any Sabha area.

Section 4 of the Act deals with demarcation of Sabha area. The relevant part of sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (2) thereof read as under:--

(1). Government may, by notification; declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than five hundred to constitute one or more Sabha areas :

* * *

(2). Government may, by notification, include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area.

_____ ____ ____

In Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai v. State of U.P. AIR 1968 S.C. 1334, a more or less analogous situation arose. The notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (Act 33 of 1961), were challenged. By these notifications, the Government of Uttar Pradesh redivided the rural area in the district with the result that a few Khands were abolished and new created in their place. The argument advanced was that the power of the Government to do so amounted to excessive delegation of legislative functions to the State Government and being not supported by adequate safeguards or guides, was liable to be struck down. This argument was not upheld. It was held "the Act speaks for itself and is self-contained. Its policy is stated in clear terms and the power to create Khands must be read with the power to abolish Khands and create new Khands in their place. The details of how big a Khand should be, what territory it should involve and so on and so forth, cannot be the subject of detailed legislation. The Act gives ample indication of what the purpose of making a Khand is and the duties which the Kshettra Samitis must perform. On this subject the legislative will hat been sufficiently expressed and must, therefore, guide the State Government in making its notifications".

In Premnath Das v. State of Assam AIR 1969 A. & N. 61, a provision of law similar to the one under consideration came up for discussion. It was held that under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1959, the State Government has power to declare any area to be a Gaon Sabha area for the purpose of the Act and under sub-section (2) therefore, it has also the power to include any area in and exclude any area from the territorial jurisdiction of such a Gaon Sabha. The notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of these powers were held to be valid.

In Dewat Ram and another v. State of Punjab and another ILR (1963) 2 P&H. 619, it was found that the State Government was competent to include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area under sub-section (2) of section 4 of Act.

In view of the rule laid down in the authorities mentioned above, there can be no manner of doubt that the State Government is competent under subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act to include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area.

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the area of Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh vested in the Panchayat of that area u/s 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and it could not be taken away in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. This contention is fallacious on the face of it. The vesting of the rights in the Panchayat of a certain area situate within its jurisdiction u/s 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, does not in any way affect the right of the State Government to include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area. Gram Sabha Dera Fateh Singh is a statutory institution and so is Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu. The former would retain the rights in the area so long it remains within its jurisdiction. The result of the exclusion of some area from its jurisdiction and inclusion in Gram Sabha Gumthala Garhu would be that similar rights would then vest in the latter. The provisions contained in section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, vesting rights in the Panchayat would not be destructive of the administrative provisions contained in sub-section (2) of the Act.

In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in negativing the right of the State Government to include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act and consequently accepting the writ petition and quashing the letters annexure ''B, and ''E'' and Notifications annexure ''F'' and ''F--1''. We, therefore, accept the two letters patent appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge accepting the writ petition and further dismiss it leaving the parties to bear their own costs.