MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE findings of learned Single Judge based upon Section 4(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat village Khera v. State of Haryana and others, 1991(1) R.R.R. 72 : 1989 PLJ 683, that the Gram Panchayat, which is juristic person and not a natural one cannot be termed as an 'inhabitant' so as to object under Section 4(2) about alteration of boundaries of the municipal area are sought to be challenged on the basis of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction and others, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 392 (SC) : JT 2001(5) SC 218. The word 'person' as used in Order XXXIII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been interpreted to include a juristic person, like a Company. It has been held that :-

(2.) IN the present case, however, the word used In section 4(2) is 'inhabitant' and not 'person'. Further, 'person' came to be interpreted as per its definition in the General Clauses Act. Again, the word 'person' was given its meaning in the context in which it was used. Here, the question is with regard to raising of objections to the boundaries of municipal limits which, in the very nature of things, can be done only by individuals being affected and not by a juristic person.