STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TEJAL SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-163
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 07,2002
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
TEHAL SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL NARAYANDAS GOVINDDAS SHA MOTEEJEE VIRCHANDJI PRAVINCHANDRA KESHAVLAL M V MANJUNATH APPASAHEB BHARAMAPPA VANKUNDRE BASUDEO PRASAD BHAGWAN DAS G VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]UNION OF INDIA VS. CYNAMIDE INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
PIYUSH MISHRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-12] [REFERRED TO]GRAMVASI, GRAM KHARI VS. THE COLLECTOR [LAWS(CHH)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRI DEVI VS. VINOD KUMAR BAJAJ [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2005-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
JARMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-11-181] [REFERRED TO]
JANGILI SAGAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
S.T. KRISHNEGOWDA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-195] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAN MASTER VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS VS. T MOIDEEN KOYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-211] [REFERRED]
SHAYAMDHAR VS. STATE OF U P & 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
HANSAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT & OTHER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-100] [REFERRED TO]
JUNAGADH MUNICIPALITY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-10-7] [REFERRED]
N BHUJANGA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL CHANDRA DAS VS. ANJALI DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ KISHORE VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-7-254] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-831] [REFERRED]
SUKHMA DEVI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-356] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMINI P.K. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
PANTHEERANKAVU SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
M D NADEEM PASHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-82] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH SPINNING MILLS ASSOCIATION VS. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(APH)-2014-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
P KRISHNA PRASAD VS. DAVULURI PEDA VENKATESWARLU [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ KISHORE VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-495] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-293] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHMA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-288] [REFERRED TO]
SUKMA DEVI, MEMBER PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
GULZAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
K. MURALEEDHARAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT PANJ GARAIAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-128] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT BASSI SEKHAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT BABUSAHEB GHIRAMKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM MADHU SHELKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H. P. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
GANDHINAGAR SAHER JAGRUT NAGRIK PARISHARD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-9-333] [REFERRED TO]
HARDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-246] [REFERRED TO]
SAHNI CARPETS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAI NON WOVENS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTHI DR VS. DAVID CHRISTOPHER [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITRED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
SREEKALA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-7-69] [RELIED ON]
MANYATHA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE PALLIKUNNEL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED NAWAZ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
P.HARSHA VARDHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS S/O. MAROTRAO KATHLE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
VILLAGE P CALANGUTE VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
KARODIYA VILLAGE PANCHAYAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUKHA SUNDARAM PILLAI S. VS. MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
VALLA CHANDRAMOULI VS. GOVT OF A P REVENUE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH RAMKRISHNA KASHIWAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
BALASAHEB SAHEBRAO BODKHE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
PFIZER LIMITED & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN PATIDAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2007-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
SAIFUDEEN K. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
K T PLANTATION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHI RAM ARORA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V. N. Khare, J. -
(1.)There is a village called Wazidpur in Block Ghal Khurd in the district of Firozepur, Punjab. For the said village and certain other adjoining areas, Gram Sabha, Wazidpur was constituted and established under S. 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'). The areas included in the said Gram Sabha were villages Khanpur and Harijan Colony. After 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 came into force Punjab Legislature enacted the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in conformity with the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. After the Act came into force, it appears that the residents of village Khanpur represented to the Government for having an independent Gram Sabha for village Khanpur by including certain portions of area of Gram Sabha, Wazidpur. The Government after making inquiry issued notifications dated 24-10-1997 under Ss. 3, 4 and 10 of the Act respectively. By the said notification, the Government under S. 3 of the Act declared the territorial area of Gram Sabha, Khanpur comprising of abadi portions of village Wazidpur and villages Khanpur and Harijan Colony. By another notification of the same date, the Government declared the establishment of Gram Sabha, Khanpur under S. 4 of the Act. The Government also constituted Gram Panchayat for the Gram Sabha, Khanpur. It was at this stage, respondent No. 1, who was Sarpanch of Gram Sabha, Wazidpur and respondent No. 2, who was the member of the Gram Panchayat, Wazidpur filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notifications dated 24-10-1997. The contentions raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court, inter alia, were that no opportunity of hearing having been afforded before declaring the territorial area of village Khanpur inasmuch as before establishing Gram Sabha, Khanpur, the notifications were invalid; that, the locality Harijan Colony not being contiguous to village Khanpur, the said locality could not have been included in Gram Sabha, Khanpur and, that, the notifications under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act could not have been issued simultaneously and, therefore, the notifications are invalid. The aforesaid contentions advanced by the writ petitioners found favour with the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notifications dated 24-10-1997 to the extent it related to the Gram Sabha, Khanpur were set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the State of Punjab has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
(2.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the reasoning given by the High Court and argued that none of the reasons given by the High Court while allowing the writ petition is tenable in law and, therefore, the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. None has appeared for the respondents writ petitioners.
(3.)After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal.
(1) whether the State Government was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the residents of the area excluded from Gram Sabha, Wazidpur and now included in the Gram Sabha, Khanpur before issuing notifications under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, respectively declaring territorial area of Gram Sabha, Khanpur and establishing Gram Sabha, Khanpur;
(2) whether the notifications under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act could be issued simultaneously; and
(3) whether the Harijan colony being not contiguous to the village Khanpur it could not have been included in Gram Sabha, Khanpur under S. 3(ii) of the Act.
(2.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the reasoning given by the High Court and argued that none of the reasons given by the High Court while allowing the writ petition is tenable in law and, therefore, the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. None has appeared for the respondents writ petitioners.
(3.)After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal.
(1) whether the State Government was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the residents of the area excluded from Gram Sabha, Wazidpur and now included in the Gram Sabha, Khanpur before issuing notifications under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, respectively declaring territorial area of Gram Sabha, Khanpur and establishing Gram Sabha, Khanpur;
(2) whether the notifications under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act could be issued simultaneously; and
(3) whether the Harijan colony being not contiguous to the village Khanpur it could not have been included in Gram Sabha, Khanpur under S. 3(ii) of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.