GOPALJI JIVRAJ GANATRA Vs. S J MUNSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a property-holder and a tax-payer has filed this petition for directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondent No. 3 Panchayat and its Chairman respondent No. 4 in respect of certain actions taken in contravention of the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The main grievance made by the counsel for the petitioner was that certain lands shown in the statement Annexure C to the petition were given on lease to different persons on nominal rent contrary to the provisions of sec. 98 of the Act thereby causing financial loss to the panchayat. It is averred that these lands having been vested in the panchayat by the Government under sec. 96 of the Act could not be given on lease without the previous sanction of the competent authority. Respondent No. 3 and the Chairman respondent No. 4 having given the land on lease to different persons without the previous sanction of the competent authority committed a violation of sec. 98 of the Act which resulted in substantial financial loss to the panchayat. According to the petitioner the lands were leased out on token rent by passing resolutions from time to time without obtaining the sanction of the competent authority presumably because the respondents knew that if they sought the sanction of the competent authority the same would not be forthcoming. In other words according to the petitioner this was a case of gross abuse of power and authority which ought to have been inquired into under sec. 317(2) of the Act and the defaulter punished as provided therein.

(2.) None of the respondents has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the averments and allegations made in this petition. At the hearing of this petition Mr. Vasavada for Mr. Vakharia stated that the Development Commissioner had inquired into this matter and he had come to the conclusion by his order dated 25/07/1976 that in leasing the lands there was no violation of sec. 98 of the Act. He also gave me a typed copy of the order passed by the Development Commissioner which I have kept on record. Mr. Bukhari the learned Assistant Government Pleader who has the original file with him states after comparing this typed copy with the original order that it is faithful and can be relied upon.

(3.) Sec. 96 of the Act provides that the State Government may subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may think fit to impose vest in a panchayat open sites waste vacant or grazing lands or public roads streets bridges ditches dikes and fences wells river-beds tanks streams lakes nallas canals water-courses trees or any other property in the gram or nagar as the case may be. Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 96 gives the Government the right of re-entry if the land etc. which has been v-ested in the panchayat is required by the Government for any public purpose. It would appear from the above provision that property vesting in the Government can be vested in a gram or nagar panchayat under see. 96(1) of the Act but such vesting will not debar the Government from resuming at any time such site or land if it is required by it for any public purpose. Sec. 97(1) speaks about a taluka or district panchayat vesting its property in a gram or nagar panchayat. There is no provision analogous to sec. 96(4) of the Act insofar as vesting of taluka or district panchayat property in gram or nagar panchayat concerned.