N. M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a resident of village Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Sambhar, District Jaipur, has filed this writ petition challenging the notifications dated October 4, 1974 and September 15, 1978, by which the State Government has declared Kishangarh Renwal Panchayat Circle as a Municipality. According to the petitioner Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal was constituted in the year, 1956. THE Gram-Panchayat comprised of three revenue villages, viz, (1) Kishangarh Renwal, (2) Moondli Ranjitpura and (3) Dhondhia Ramsinghpura. THE revenue village Kishangarh Renwal comprised of the following dhanis. THEir approximate distances from village Kishangarh Renwal is also given against each as follows : 1. Hathipura 4 miles. 2. Ramgadiyon ki-dhani 7-1/2 miles. 3. Sodhiwali dhani 7-1/2 miles.
(2.) REVENUE village Dhondhia Ramsinghpura comprised of the following dhanis and their approximate distances are given as under : 4. Ahiron-ki-dhani 7-1/2 miles. 5. Bhaji-wali dhani 7-1/2 miles. 6. Ramsinghpura 2 miles. Revenue village Moondli Ranjitpura comprised of the following dhanis and their approximate distances are given as under : 1. Ranjitpura 3 miles. 2. Motawali dhani 2 miles. 3. Sanptowali dhani 1-1/2 miles. 4. Aadhiyawali dhani 3 miles. 5. Gumnahali dhani 3 miles. The State Government issued a notification No. F. 1 (6) LSG/172/ 58738, dated October 4, 1974, in exercise of its powers under Sec. 6 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), declaring that the State Government sought to convert the Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal into a Municipality. It was also mentioned that the objections to this proposed conversion, if any, should be filed with the authority concerned within a period of two months from the date of its publication in the official Gazette or announcement by affixing notice at conspicuous places or by beat of drums, whichever is later. According to the petitioner the State Government, while seeking to convert the Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal into a Municipality, did not issue any notice nor published any notification in this regard so as to validly excluded the area from Gram-Panchayat and vest the same in the proposed Municipality. A copy of the notification was pasted only in village Kishangarh Renwal and not in any other village or their suburbs covered by the Gram-Panchayat. The beating of drums was not done at any other place except in village Kishangarh Renwal. The grievance of the petitioner is that most of the people in the area did not know of the fact of the proposed conversion and were precluded from preferring their objections. It is admitted by the petitioner that some of the residents of village Kishangarh Renwal filed their objections in or about the month of September, 1975, with the authorities concerned. The other objection raised by the petitioner is that the villages in the Gram-Panchayat and their Suburbs were situated at the distance of approximately 2 to 4 miles from village Kishangarh Renwal as well as the villages and suburbs inter se and hence they could not be included into a Municipality or converted into a Municipality Board in view of proviso (i) to Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 5 of the Act. The above provision clearly prohibited the inclusion of any town or suburbs in a Municipality with any other town or suburbs from which it is separated by more than one mile of lend unoccupied by houses. Another objections raised by the petitioner is that the population of village Kishangarh Renwal was about six thousand only and since the other areas could not be included in Kishangarh Renwal, the impugned notification was in violation of proviso (ii) to Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 5 of the Act, which requires that the population of the area proposed to be included in a Municipality should not be less than eight thousand.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner further is that the proposal of conversion of the Gram Panchayat into a Municipality was abandoned because nothing was heard or done in this regard for a considerable long period of time. THEreafter at the request of some inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat area another opportunity of filing the objections was given and some of the residents of village Kishangarh Renwal again filed their objections on January 5,1978. In the objections, dated January 5, 1978, it was stated inter alia that the villages and their suburbs existed at a distance of 5-6 miles from each other and that looking to the population of the area it could not be included or converted into a Municipality and, that the Gram-Panchayat in reply desired it not to be converted into a Municipality and, that the cause of the development of the area could not be served in a better manner by converting it into a Municipal Board. According to the petitioners even after filing the aforesaid objections no opportunity of hearing was given and the Government published a notification No. F. 1 (6) LSG/74/3888-96, dated September 15, 1978 under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, dated September 28, 1978. It was mentioned in this notification, to the surprise of the residents of Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal, that the objections filed were found without substance, baseless and unsustainable and that the Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal was being converted into a Municipality. Apart from the above mentioned objections it has also been alleged by the petitioner that in issuing the aforesaid notification the mandatory requirement of Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Panchayat Act"), were ignored altogether. It is further alleged that unless an area is excluded from a Panchayat Circle after following the provisions laid down under sec. 86 of the Panchayat Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it cannot be properly included within the limits of a Municipality. By an application, dated June 28, 1982 the petitioner has sought permission to add one more ground in the writ petition that the proviso added to Sec. 4 of the Act by making an amendment in the year 1974, was illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act itself. The proviso cannot travel beyond the ambit of the main Section and it is also illegal as it gave unbridled, unguided and arbitrary powers to the State Government to exclude any area from the Panchayat without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has thus also prayed that proviso to Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act amended by Sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Second Amendment) Act, 1974, may kindly be declared ultra-vires to Sec. 4 of the Act. The State Government in reply have stated that revenue village Kishangarh Renwal consisted of 60 dhanis and Mohallas and the distance between each of the occupied houses was lese than one mile. Similarly revenue village Dhondhia Ramsinghpura comprised of 9 dhanis and Mohallas and the distance in their case is also less than one mile. In case of revenue village Moondli Ranjeetpura it is stated that it comprises of 12 dhanis and Mohallas and the distance in between them is also less than one mile. The case of the State Government further is that the entire inhabited population of Kishangarh Renwal Panchayat Circle was situated in a distance of less than one mile. It is further alleged that under the amended provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act whole or any part of a Panchayat circle can be declared as a Municipality and in that case it was not necessary to observe and follow the procedure laid down in the Panchayat Act. It is further alleged that the notification, dated October 4, 1974 was duly published in Rajasthan Gazette and was also notified by pasting the same on November 3, 1974 near the Chaupar of Kishangarh Renwal. Village Kishangarh Renwal was the important central place of the entire Panchayat circle and the office of Gram Panchayat is also situated there and as such the pasting of notice was also done in that area and proclamation was also done by beating of drums in the said area. Document Ex. R 1 has been filed in support of the above contention. It is further alleged that only five objections of the persons mentioned in para 13 of the reply were received which consisted of Baker Singh, Sarpanch Grampanchayat, Gulabchand Doshi, President Vyapar Mandal, Kishangarh Renwal, entire village community and people of Panchayat circle through Laxmi Narain Kisan and others. Shri Gulab Chand Doshi, President, Block village Panchayat Congress Committee and Shri Laxmi Narain, President, Block Congress, Committee It is farther alleged that the distance between the Dhanis situated in the Panchayat area was not more than one mile and in support of this a map Ex R. 2 has been filed. The State Government has further alleged that the population of Panchayat area of Kishangarh Renwal, according to the Census Report of 1971, was eleven thousand, five hundred eighty and now the population has increased much beyond this. According to this Census Report of 1971, the population of village Kishangarh Renwal itself was ten thousand, one hundred forty one. It is further alleged that the notification, dated September 15, 1978, was quite legal and the same has been issued after considering the objections raised in this regard. It is further alleged that apart from the notice pasted on November 3, 1974 at the public of Chaupar and also by beat of drums, again the objections were invited by pasting a notice on December 25, 1977, and also issuing proclamation by beat of drums. In this manner full and sufficient opportunity has been given to all and sundries and the notification has been issued after considering the objections received in this regard. It has also been alleged that the population of Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal was more than eight thousand and it was an important place in view of the transport and trade facilities. There was proper facility of water, electricity, education, medical, post-office, railway station etc. and keeping in view the over all development of the area and in larger public interest, the State Government had considered it just and proper to convert the Gram-panchayat into a Municipality. ;