GRAM SABHAVILLAGE RANIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 154 landowners, cultivators and residents including the Gram Sabha and the Sarpanch of village Rania, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, impugn the notifications issued under sub-secs. (1) and (3) of S. 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act (for short, the Act). Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, extending the limits of Municipal Committee, Dhariwal, leading to the inclusion of 2377 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land of this village within those limits.

(2.) The primary challenge to these notifications is on the ground of noncompliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 5 of the Act inasmuch as the State Government failed to determine the other manner in which its intent to extend the Municipal limits was to be published and the lack of such publication. On behalf of respondent No. 1, i.e., the State Govt. it is pleaded in para. 1 of the written statement that the notifications, Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, were published in the Government Gazette and for the rest of the compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) it was for respondent No. 2, that is, the Municipal Committee, to carry out the same. In the later part of the said written statement, i.e. para 3(c), it has been stated that publication was, in fact. made in village Rania by beat of drum on Feb. 22, 1974 informing the villagers to file objections, if any, with the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, within six weeks from the date of the publication. It is also maintained that notices to that effect were pasted at conspicuous places in the village. The Municipal Committee in its return too maintains that such a publication through beat of drum was carried out and a note recorded by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee (Annexure R. 2) is also produced in support of this stand. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties it is but necessary to reproduce the contents of sub-section (1) of S. 5 of the Act which read as follows :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are full of merit. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents stated at No. (i) above was considered in two earlier decisions of this Court in Gupta Iron & Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 2889 of 1975, decided on 5-9-1979 : (1980 Tax LR NOC 11) and Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 Punj & Har 290, and was negatived.