AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—This is an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., who dismissed the Appellant''s application for the
issue 1 of a writ of mandamus directing the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards to hold elections to Kada-malaiputhur Panchayat.
In the Chingleput district there are two revenue villages, Perumber Kandigai and Kadamalaiputhur, each of which has a population of more than
500 persons; both are situate adjacent to each other. On 31st May 1958, the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards issued a
notification u/s 3(1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1950 declaring Perumber Kandigai as a village for the purpose of the Act. He fixed by that
notification the number of members to the Panchayat at 8. Nearly two years later on 31st March 1960 a similar notification was issued with
respect to Kadamalaiputhur and the number of members to the panchayat was limited to five. On 9th November 1960 the Inspector of Municipal
Councils and Local Boards issued two notifications the first cancelling u/s 3(2)(c)(ii) the earlier notification, dated 31st March 1960 which declared
Kadamalaiputhur as a separate village for the purposes of the Act. The other notification purported to amalgamate Kadamalaiputhur with
Perumber Kandigai and the total number of members fixed for the panchayat was 13, the former village being subsequently treated as one of the
wards of the Panchayat newly formed. Although the later notification does not in express terms modify the notification with respect to Perumber
Kandigai, dated 31st May 1958, it can be taken on a fair reading of the respective notifications that ''the-intention of the Inspector of Local Boards
was to do so. The Appellant who was a resident-tax-payer of Kadamalaiputhur applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution stating
that once the authority functioning tinder Section 3(1)(c) of the Act constituted a local area into a village as was done under the notification, dated
31st March 1960, it would not be later open to that authority to cancel that notification particularly as the area affected, namely, Kadamalaiputhur
was itself a revenue village with a population of over 500 inhabitants. Veeraswami, J., found no merits in the contention as he held that it was
competent for the Inspector to cancel, modify or alter a notification previously made and to amalgamate more than one revenue village into a single
village for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act. The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the petition: hence this appeal. To
appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant it is necessary first to set out Section 3 of the Panchayats Act:
(1) The Inspector shall by notification�
(a) classify and declare every local area comprising a revenue village or villages or any portion of a revenue village or contiguous portions of two or
more revenue villages and having a population estimated at not less than five thousand and an annual income estimated at not less than ten thousand
rupees as a panchayat town for the purposes of this Act;
(b) classify and declare every other local area comprising a revenue village or villages or any portion of a revenue village or contiguous portions of
two or more revenue villages with a population estimated at not less than five hundred as a panchayat village for the purposes of this Act; and
(c) specify the name of such panchayat town or panchayat village.
(2) (a) The Inspector may, by notification, exclude from a village or town any area comprised therein, provided that the population of the village or
town after such exclusion, is not less than five hundred.
(b) in regard to any area excluded under Clause (a), the Inspector shall by notification under Sub-section (1) declare it to be a village or town if it
has a population of not less than five hundred or if its population is less than five hundred include it in any contiguous village or town under Clause
(c)(i).
(c) The Inspector may, by notification,�
(i) include in a village or town any local area contiguous thereto; or
(ii) cancel or modify a notification issued under Sub-section (1);, or
(iii) alter the name of any village or town specified under Sub-section (1).
(d) Before issuing a notification under Clause (a) or under Clause (6) read with Sub-section (1) or under Clause (o), the Inspector shall give the
panchayat or panchayats which will be affected by the issue of such notification a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the proposal
and shall consider the explanations and objections if any, of such panchayat or panchayats.
(3) Any rate-payer or inhabitant of such area or any panchayat concerned may, if he or it objects to any notification under Sub-section (1) or Sub-
section (2), appeal to the Government within such period as may be prescribed. (Best of the section omitted as not necessary).
The term village has been defined in Section 2(35) of the Act as meaning any local area which is declared to be a panchayat village u/s 3, Sub-
section (1). It would follow from this definition that for the purposes of the Panchayat Act there will be a village only if there is a notification under
the Act. The term revenue village has been defined as any local area which is recognised as a village in the revenue accounts of Government after
excluding therefrom the area specified in the Act. It is not, however, necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to them.
Mr. T.R. Srinivasan appearing for the Appellant has contended, that u/s 3(1)(6) every revenue village should be notified as a separate panchayat
and it would not be competent for the Inspector of Local Boards to amalgamate two villages and form them into one and call it a village for the
purposes of the Panchayats Act. This contention cannot be accepted having regard to the terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act which we have
extracted above. That provides that it would be competent for the Inspector by means of a notification, to classify and declare any local area
comprising a revenue village or more ''than one revenue village as a panchayat village for the purposes of the Panchayat Act. It is implicit from the
above provision that there exists a power in the Inspector to amalgamate more than one village into one unit, for the purpose of the administration
as a panchayat. It is however needless to say that this cannot be done without limit. For example, this power cannot be exercised so as to combine
25 villages into a single unit and call it a village. That is because such a notification, if ever it is issued, would be contrary to the spirit of the Act
which is intended to vest the local administration of villages in a representative body consisting of villagers themselves, each village being an unit
ordinarily. In the present case it is not alleged by the Appellant that the Inspector was actuated by any irrelevant consideration in combining the two
villages of Perumber Kandigai and Kadamalaiputhur into one unit. From what we have stated above, it will be seen that there were to be eight
members for the panchayat of the former village while in respect of the latter the number was five. A panchayat with five members would be too
small to function as a deliberative corporate body. It was, therefore, really in the interests of the efficient working of the Panchayat that the
Inspector of Local Boards thought that better results could be achieved by combining the two villages in question into one unit so that a body of 13
members for that panchayat might deliberate in the matter of local administration. It cannot, therefore, be said that the notification was anything but
bona fide. It was then contended that the power of cancellation of a notification given u/s 3(c)(2)(ii) would relate only to things other than those
provided under Sub-Section 1. There is, however, nothing in the section to warrant such an argument. The power to cancel or modify a notification
issued under Sub-Section 1 is not limited by anything in the section to cases other than those provided for in Section 3(1)(a). It was, however,
argued that the policy of the Act is to have a panchayat for each revenue village which has a population of more than 500 inhabitants. That may be
so. But the Act itself gives power in appropriate cases to the Inspector to combine more than one revenue village for the purpose of constituting a
panchayat village and when, therefore, the Inspector in the instant case considered that it would be more conducive to the efficient administration of
the panchayat that the two villages of Perumber Kandigai and Kadamalaiputhur should be amalgamated and formed into one unit it cannot be said
that he acted in excess of his powers. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judge that the order passed by the Inspector of Municipal Councils
and Local Boards cannot in any way be considered as opposed to the provisions of the statute. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.