Gurdial Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

M.M. Punchhi, J.—Before this Court two civil Writ Petitions No. 6153/88 and 7229/88, had earlier been brought by villagers of village Karera Khurd, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala finding fault respectively with two notifications, issued on 30th June, 1988 and on lst/2nd August, 1988. The State Government made effort to correct those notifications one after the other. Thus, nothing could be done under those notifications. Now the latest notification issued by the State under challenge is dated 27th September, 1988 which is annexure P. 4 to the petition. We were apprised of the same while disposing of C.W.P. No. 7229 of 1988 on 28th September, 1988.

The impugned notification speaks for itself. It is claimed by the Petitioners that it is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Gram Panchayat Act 1952.

The first objection is that there cannot be two panchavats in one village. The village is one undoubtedly and it is Karera Khurd. Section 4 of the Gram Panchayat Act (as applicable to the State of Haryana) provides that the Government may by notification declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than 500 to constitute one or more Sabha areas. Moreover, panchayats are co-related with Sabha areas and a village can have more than one Sabha area and thus more than one Gram'' Panchayat. Therefore, creation of two Sabha areas in a village is permissible u/s 4. The language of the section is plain and simple.

The next objection is that u/s 3(q) of the Act, "Village" means any local area, recorded as a revenue estate in the revenue records of the district in which it is situated. In the event of there being more than one Sabha area therein the name of the village would obviously remain one as it is related to the revenue estate as recorded in the revenue record. All the same two Sabha areas therein may have different names not essentially the same as that of the village for purposes of separate identity.

The third objection is that in the impugned notification though two Sabha areas have been created but the name of the village has been used twice and this is impermissible. This contention too is without any force. The two Sabha areas have been identified by name even though the name of the village has been used but only to co-relate the same with the name of the Sabha area. There is, thus no illegality. It may at best be an irregularity, not affecting the exercise of power.

Now coming" to the notification itself column No. 2 provides the name of the village constituting Sabha area and column No. 5 provides the name of the Panchayats. Since two Panchayats have been created in the village, the name of one Panchayat or the Sabha area is Karera Khurd-T and the other Karera Khurd-2. Separate areas have been identified which comprise the respective Sabha areas. Since both the Sabha areas by specific name are in the village known as Karera Khurd, the mention of the name of the village in column No. 2 twice, co-relative with the name of the respective Sabha area, is not something which is violative of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. We hold it accordingly.

Lastly, it has been contended that in the impugned notification, though earlier notifications have been superseded, the notification issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act in the year 1983 annexure P. 5 has not been superseded. In the impugned notification, an expression has been used "In super-session of all previous notifications". Then numbers are given of the superseded notifications. The omission therein of super-session of the 1983 notification ''annexure P. 5'' would not be fatal to the impugned notification annexure P. 4, firstly, because all previous notifications have been superseded and the mere non-mentioning of 1983 notification would make no difference and secondly the language of the notification is clear that two Sabha areas were being created in one village in place of one Sabha area which was earlier in the village.

To conclude, we are of the view that the impugned notification annexure P. 4 does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, we dismiss the petition in limine.