AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to the notification issued by the Haryana Government, copy Annexure P-1 dated 30.6.1988, whereby declaring two Sabha Areas known as Bhorakh Madadan and Harigarh out of one revenue estate known as Harigarh Bhorakh and election of members of the Panchayat held for such Sabha Area. The ground of attack is to the effect that there can be one Sabha Area for one revenue estate or group of revenue estates. However there cannot be two Sabha Areas in one revenue estate. It is admitted on behalf of the respondents that there is only one revenue estate known as Harigarh Bhorakh and tow Sabha Areas have been created vide notification Annexure P-I, as Bhorakh Madadan and Harigarh.

(2.) The precise question arose in this Court in The State of Haryana and others v. Daya Ram and others, 1985 87 PunLR 97, while making reference to the definition of "village" as given in Section 2(q) and Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Gram Panchayat Act as applicable in Haryana. It was held as under :-

(3.) Similar matter came up before me in C.W.P. No. 7255 of 1988 (Gurmukh Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others) decided on 10.3.1989. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in Daya Ram's case , the notification issued by the State of Haryana was quashed whereby two Sabha Areas were created out of one village. In view of the decision referred to above notification Annexure P-1 whereby two Sabha Areas have been established out of on revenue estate of Harigarh Bhorakha cannot be sustained with the result that the election of the members of two Sabha Areas aforesaid is also to be quashed. No other point has been urged.