GROUP GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 12th June 2007 issued by the respondent no.1 under section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "Village Panchayats Act") declaring that the group of revenue villages Karav, Kharchirbi, Kharkarabi, Kharghat Khardevli, Kharmachela, Kharjambhela and Khardombi would constitute a local area by name village Karav for the purposes of Village Panchayats Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedure required to be followed before issuing of notification and declaration of village under section 4 of the Village Panchayats Act was not followed, inasmuch as proper opportunity of raising an objection to the proposal of unification and proper notice of the proposal was not given to the villagers of old village "Karav". He invited our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ashok Ganpat Jadhav v. State Election Commission & anr., reported in 2000 (4) M.L.J. 150. In the said decision, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. v. Pradhan Singh Kshetra Samiti & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1512; Visakhapatnam Municipality v. Kandregula Nukaraju, AIR 1975 SC 2172; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136; Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1239 and Sundardas Kanyalal Bhathija & Ors. v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 261, the Division Bench held that after the introduction of Part IX in the Constitution of India and the consequent amendment to the provisions of section 4 of the Village Panchayats Act, an opportunity of hearing to the villagers before the de-limitation order passed was mandatory. The Court further held that this opportunity of hearing may be given by way of displaying notice on the village Chawdi/Panchayat or any place prominent in the respective wards and/or by giving a public notice by beat of drums though it may not be necessary to give individual notice of hearing to every villager. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners in the present case. He submitted that no notice, as was held to be mandatory in the decision of Ashok Ganpat Jadhav (supra), was never given. The impugned notification, which was issued without giving appropriate notice, was therefore bad in law and was required to be set aside. Per contra, Mr.Deshpande, A.G.P., submitted that appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. In this connection, he referred to and relied upon the affidavit in reply sworn in by Shilpa Prakash Rajpurkar, Under Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit in reply, the affiant has affirmed that the proper procedure as laid down under section 4 of the Village Panchayats Act was followed and the relevant gram panchayats were consulted by the State Government. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, she has stated that in view of the report of the State Election Commission, by letter dated 16th December 1995 the State Government requested the Chief Election Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad to carry out necessary inquiry and report to the State Government through the Commissioner, and the decision of unification was taken thereafter. In paragraph 8, she has further stated as follows:-