DEVENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in W.P. No. 5721/1998 shall govern the fate of W.P. No. 4301/1999 (Bandhu Yadav v. State of M.P. and five others) and W.P. No. 3975/99 (Dashrath Prasad Mishra and five others v. State of M.P. and four others).

(2.) BY this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the constitutional validity of the provisions of M.P. Maihar Sharda Devi Mela Adhiniyam, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 15 of 1998') published in M.P. Rajpatra on 9.7.1998 empowering respondent No.3 Collector under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') to constitute Mandir Prabandh Committee as enumerated under section 49 of the Adhiniyam and conferring power to the said Committee by infringing the rights of petitioners and curtailing its revenue specially when the temple of Ma Sharda falls within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchyat, Arkandi (the petitioner).

(3.) It has been putforth by the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat has to maintain its revenue for carrying out the statutory functions enshrined under section 49 of the said Adhiniyam, but, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner -Gram Panchayat to carry out the functions and creating hurdle in discharging of the same. According to the petitioner the Gram Panchayat has been vested with all powers to notify all revenue records including the Khasra Panchashala, Waj -ul -Ars, etc. of the relevant village within its jurisdiction and is also entitled to recover land revenue and other taxes as per the item No.9 of Annexure P -1. The temple of 'Ma Sharda Devi' is situated at Maihar and comes under the territory of the said Gram Panchayat. The respondent No.3, Collector, Satna issued a letter on 14.3.1991, Annexure P -3, constituting an Administrative Committee of which he shall be the President and the powers have been given to appoint the 'Poojari'. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, a Panchayat is competent and empowered to set -up the area for establishment and use any place for the purpose of market and also for organising 'Mela' of the 'Ma Sharda Devi Temple' located in village Arkandi. According to the petitioner a market has been set -up near the vicinity. of the temple but the Committee which was constituted is not allowing the petitioner and his office bearers to function in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam. It has been putforth that no such other person or authority can be entrusted to manage the affairs of the 'Mela'. 7. In all the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Act No. 15 of 1998 on the following grounds which we summarize: