Gram Panchayat Pohkarwas, Bhiwani vs Chandi Ram and Another

M.M. Punchi, J.—The Gram Panchayat Pokarwas, District Bhiwani has invoked the inherent powers of this Court u/s 452, Cr. P.C. praying for quashing of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani whereby in exercise of powers u/s 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 an order of the Gram Panchayat was set aside.

Broadly stated, the facts which gave rise to the cause, were that the respondent suffered an order u/s 23 of the Gran Panchayat Act whereby he imposed a fine of Rs. 10/- and recurring fine of Rs. 1/- per day till the fine was paid. The respondent attracted this penalty as allegedly he had made some encroachment, on land belonging to the Gram Panchayat The respondent filed a revision petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bhiwani, u/s 51 of the said Act claiming that failure of justice had occurred and the order and resolution of the Panchayat be annulled or cancelled as the case may be. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 28th February, 1980, held the order of the Gram Panchayat to be unsustainable and quashed it.

Now in t is petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on merits. All what has been stated is that the order of the Gram Panchayat passed u/s 23 of the said Act could be appealed against u/s 23-A of the Act before the Deputy Director. Panchayat, Haryana, within 30 days of the passing of the said order. It is claimed that the remedy of appeal was the only appropriate remedy, made available to a person aggrieved by an order passed under Sections 21, 22 or 23 of the said Act. The necessary insertion of Section 23A was made by Haryana Act No. 3 of 1976 with effect from 11th February, 1976 and was available to the respondent when the Panchayat passed the order against him on 6th April, 1978. The existence of such remedy is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Now the sole question which requires determination is whether the appellate remedy available u/s 23-A and a revisional remedy u/s 51 are mutually exclusive or does the former wipe out the latter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Legislature (sic) providing the appellate remedy has specifically provided the appeal (sic) the orders passed by the Panchayat under sections 21, 22 and 23 of the said Act in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction and this was in the nature of a specific remedy. It is beyond dispute that proceedings initiated under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Gram Panchayat Act are in the nature of criminal proceedings and the Panchayat while exercising its jurisdiction under those sections is a Court (see in this connection Smt. Krishana Devi v. Gram Sabha Lohara (1980) 82 P.L.R. 29). It is equally beyond disoute that orders passed by the Panchayat under the aforesaid three Sections as also in any criminal proceedings otherwise were amendable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 51 of the Act. Section 51 is in the following terms:-

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, if satisfied, that a failure of justice has occurred, may, of his own motion or on an application of the party aggrieved, by order in written after notice to the accused, or the complainant as the case may be cancel or modify any order in a judicial proceeding made by a Panchayat or direct the retrial of any criminal case by the same or any other panchayat or competent Jurisdiction or by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him.

It is plain that orders passed in criminal judicial proceedings by a Panchayat are subject to the supervision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. By the insertion of Section 23-A the order of the appellate Court to Deputy Director Panchayat, is not amendable to the supervision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In other words, the appellate order passed u/s 23-A would have to be challenged elsewhere and not before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Had the Legislature thought otherwise it would have while inserting Section 23-A, made a suitable amendment in Section 51 also. It having left section 51 intact and at the same time to have inserted Section 23-A, can safely be assumed that by the creation of the remedy of appeal, the erst-while remedy of supervision u/s 51 was not taken away. Both were meant to co-exist and be available and coerative at the same time. The only apparent distinction between the two remedies inherently is that the remedy of revision (misnomered) is dependent on the discretion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Apart from this distinction, the power to grant relief remains unaffected with both the authorities.

The respondent chose to avail remedy available u/s 51 of the Act. For good reasons recorded, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction and quashed the order of the Panchayat. The objection to his jurisdiction was not taken by Panchayat at the time of the proceedings. The Panchayat sat on the fence and participated in the proceedings on the expectancy of coming out victorious. Neither on the question of law nor on propriety has a case been made out for interference u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.