KRISHANA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. GRAM SABHA LAHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law of some significance which has come before us on a reference by D.S. Tewatia, J., relates to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 21/23 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. While making the reference, the learned Judge doubted the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mahan Singh and Anr. v. Rana Pratap : A.I.R. 1960 P&H. 160. We mention here at the outset that during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for neither of the parties assailed the correctness of the said decision and rather were of the categoric opinion that a reference to the same is not even relevant for the decision of this petition. We, therefore, do not feel it necessary to examine the correctness of the said judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts giving rise to the above -noted question of law are that Gram Sabha, Lohara, Union Territory, Chandigarh, issued a notice dated June 8, 1968, asking the Petitioners to remove the boundary wall constructed by them around a certain area which resulted in obstruction in a public passage known as 'Rasta Dhanaswala Dharamsala'. The Petitioners filed their objections to this notice alleging therein that the notice was not only vague and indefinite, but similar earlier notices issued by the Panchayat had already been met successfully by them and the Panchayat should not harass them by repeatedly issuing such notices. The proceedings which continued to be pending for a considerably long time in one Panchayat or the other on account of transfer orders by the competent authorities, ultimately were transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, under the orders of Sessions Judge presumably passed by him under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The matter was finally decided by Shri J.P. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, -vide his order dated July 30, 1977, holding that the Gram Sabha could not take any further action against the Petitioners on the basis of the notice dated June 8, 1968.

(3.) THE primary, rather the sole contention of Mr. Harbans Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that no such revision petition was competent before the Additional Sessions Judge as according to the learned Counsel, Shri J.P. Gupta, Magistrate, had only decided the proceedings under Section 21/23 of the Gram Panchayat Act as 'a Panchayat' and applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure as such has specifically been excluded by the provisions of Section 66 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. In a nutshell the learned Counsel submits that when a Judicial Magistrate tries or concludes proceedings under the Gram Panchayat Act, the jurisdiction he exercises and the procedure he follows is that laid down under the Gram Panchayat Act and not under the Code of Criminal Procedure . If that is the situation, contends the learned Counsel, then no revision under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, was competent against the order of the Judicial Magistrate. He points out that at the most the Chief Judicial Magistrate could cancel or modify the order in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act.