NEMICHAND Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT THANVLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal raises a short question whether before filing a suit against the Gram Panchayat a notice was necessary to the Panchayat under sec. 79 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the "act".

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant admits that no notice was given by the plaintiff-appellant to the Gram Panchayat. He contends that sub-sec. (2) of sec. 79 of the Act was inapplicable. He takes the stand that the Panchayat has no authority to treat the plaintiff's land as belonging to it and then pass an order for removal of the so-called encroachment. The relevant facts as stated in the judgment of the lower appellate court were briefly these : Plaintiff claims to have a piece of land situated in village Thanvla. He started the construction of a house over this land which was abutting on a public road. The public of village Thanvla made a report before the Gram Panchayat about the construction alleging that there was an encroachment by the plaintiff on the public way. Thereupon the Gram Panchayat gave a notice to the plaintiff and called upon him not to make any construction on the western part of the plot as it was Panchayat tend and the intended construction would narrow down the public way. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat made an inquiry into the matter. It recorded some evidence and held that the character of the land was a public way. Consequently the plaintiff was directed to vacate the land.

(3.) LEARNED counsel raised one more point and submitted that sub-cls. (a) & (b) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 79 were alternative and where the action is commenced within six months after the accrual of the cause of action then cl. (a) will not be attracted. I am unable to read the two clauses in this manner. To my mind, a party bringing a suit against the Panchayat has to fulfil the requirements of not only sub-cl. (a) but of Cl. (b) as well. The word "or" when it intervenes two negative propositions will be having a force of a conjunction. This is the normal meaning in the English language. For example, if one were to say 'no person shall sit in the reading room or the lawn' then it means that he will be neither entitled to sit in the lawn nor in the reading room. Here the word "or" will not be taken in the sense of an option between the two alternatives. The same view has been taken by Beri J. , as he then was, in the Gram Panchayat of Village Aluda vs. Sh. Pushpa Kanwar (7 ). Thus I am unable to hold that the view taken by the courts below was in any manner erroneous.