Bapna, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioners Ganpatmal, Pratap Ram, Jiwan Ram and Mst. Tijuri widow of Shamboo Ram have come to this Court by petition, dated 9th September, 1957, on the allegations that there is a plot of agricultural land situate in village Khakhardi Khasra No. 91 measuring 119 Bighas and 19 Biswas of which they held a Parcha in their name. It is alleged that the non-petitioner Man Mal lodged a complaint before the Gram Panchayat, Guda which is the Gram Panchayat for Khakhardi also) that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and Shamboo Ram deceased had obstructed the flow of rain water into the village tank by cultivating a portion of the land which was a Nala. It was alleged that the water flowed through this Nala into the tank and supplied water for drinking purposes for the cattle. THE three petitioners and Shamboo Ram denied the existence of the Nala or of the tank and further denied any obstruction to the water course. THE Gram Panchayat by order of 9th September, 1956 held that the matter was one which they were competent to deal with under sec. 24 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and directed the three petitioners and Shamboo Ram to clear off the Nala so as to remove the obstruction in the flow of water. THE matter was again considered by the Panchayat and the evidence of the parties was recorded and it was finally ordered on 3rd February, 1957, that each of the three petitioners and Shamboo Ram should pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each for having obstructed the flow of water to the tank and directed them to clear off the Nala within seven days failing which they would be further liable to a fine of Re 1/- per day after the expiry of seven days. THE petitioners tried to obtain the Parcha for the land covered by the Nala but for various reasons which it is not possible to follow. THE judgment of the Assistant Record Officer was that no Parcha was necessary to be issued. On appeal by Man Mal, the Record Officer said that as no Parcha was issued, no appeal was necessary. Be that as it may, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat against the order of the Gram Panchayat. I he Tehsil Panchayat maintained the order so far as it directed the petitioners to clear off the obstruction in the passage of the water into the Nala, but reduced the fine to Rs. 15/- each This judgment is dated 3rd February, 1957. The case of the petitioners is that there was no Nala at the place and that in any case, the agricultural operations proposed to be conducted by these petitioners would not interfere in the flow of water. It was also contended that the powers conferred by sec. 24 (1) of the Rajasthan Gram Panchayat Act only permitted the Gram Panchayat to spend any money it liked on the maintenance of any tank, but it did not authorise the issue of any instructions to a third party to do any particular act and in any case the imposition of fine was unauthorised. We have heard learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced in this case. The finding that there was a Nala which led to the tank is a finding of fact and even the orders of the Settlement Department support that finding. It is again a question of fact that water during rainy season flows through this Nala and fills up the tank which provides drinking water for the cattle. The questions of law which have been raised are also of no substance. Sec. 24 of the Rajasthan Gram Panchayat Act made one of the obligatory duties of the Gram Panchayat to make adequate provision in regard to several matters including (1) Maintenance of tanks and ponds and regulation of sources of water supply for drinking purposes. Sec. 46 authorises a Panchayat to do all acts necessary for, and incidental to the execution of its obligatory and discretionary duties, and without prejudice to, the generality of the aforesaid provision mention is made of various acts which can be done by the Panchayat. Sec. 27 authorises a Panchayat to impose a fine on any person who disobeys a general regulation or a special order under secs. 24, 25 and 26. What was done in the present case was that an order was issued to the petitioners and Shamboo Ram not to interfere with the passage of water through the Nala to the tank and that any obstruction which has been caused by that, should be removed by them. While sec. 24 authorises a Gram Panchayat to invest funds, sec. 26 authorises the Panchayat to give a direction to any person for the purpose of carrying out all the obligatory duties in particular to a person who has created a situation which makes it necessary for the Gram Panchayat to interfere. In that view of law, the order by the Gram Panchayat, cannot be said to be without authority. It was next contended that the fine of Re. 1/- per day for non-compliance, would be accumulated to a huge amount and the petitioners could not comply with the order of the Tehsil Panchayat as they had filed the writ petition. The petitioners had come to this Court challenging the validity of the order of the Gram Panchayat. Their petition is dismissed, they are allowed one month's time within which they can comply with the order so far as the removal of the obstruction to the flow of water through the Nala to the tank is concerned. The fine has already been reduced from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 15/- by the Tehsil Panchayat and we see no reason to interfere further. The petition is accordingly dismissed barring the aforesaid grant of extension of time for the compliance with the order of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners will pay costs to the contesting respondent No. 3. . ;