GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Pali dated 8/2/1974 marked Ex. 26 (at pages 75 to 83 of the paper book). The validity of the order has been challenged on the ground that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner No. 3 Shri Satyadeo from the orders of the Gram Panchayat, Barwa dated 18/3/1973, 23/3/1972 and 30th March, 1972 marked Ex. 3, Ex. 7 and Ex. 9 respectively.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point canvassed before me, it would be proper to state a few relevant facts. On receiving a complaint from some villagers that the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, who are father and son, have encroached upon a part of the public way, the Gram Panchayat, issued a notice dated 16/3/72 to the non-petitioner No. 2, to show cause why the encroachment be not removed, and fixed the case on March 18, 1972. The petitioner's case is that since the non-petitioner No. 2 did not appear in response to the notice issued by it, the petitioner directed the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 to stop the construction which they were raising on a part of the public way, and to remove the encroachment already made, by a certain date failing which the Panchayat would do so at his cost. The Panchayat also directed that a penalty of Re. 1/per day may be imposed upon the non-petitioners till compliance report was made. Notice Ex. 6 dated 18/3/73 was issued to the non-petitioner No. 2 Jasraj in pursuance of the said resolution. The Panchayat again took up this matter in its meeting held on 12/3/72, and observed that the non-petitioner No. 2 was continuing construction in spite of notice, and was bent upon encroaching upon the public way, and therefore the Panchayat decided to seek help from the police for implementation of its order. By another order dated 30th March, 1972 Ex. 9, the Panchayat held that the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had encroached upon public way to the extent of 15' east to west and 2' 9" north to south, and thereby had obstructed the passage. It further directed that the Panchayat may itself employ labour and get the encroachment removed, and that the cost of removal be recovered from the said non-petitioners.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders of the Panchayat dated 18/3/72 (Ex. 3), 23 March, 1972 (Ex. 7) and 30 March, 1972 (Ex, 9). Non-petitioner No. 3 filed a revision petition before the Addl. Collector, Pali on 15/4/72, a copy of which has been placed on the record, and marked Ex. 16. The non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 also filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti, Pali from the aforesaid orders of the Panchayat. Copy of the grounds of appeal filed before the Panchayat Samiti is marked Ex. 14. An objection was taken by the petitioner Gram Panchayat before the Additional Collector that no revision application lay from the orders of the Panchayat Ex. 3, Ex. 7 and Ex. 9, as the same were appealable. It appears that the revision application remained pending for a long time, and the counsel for the petitioner stopped putting in appearance after 11/12/1972, with the result that after hearing arguments of non-petitioner No. 3 only, the Additional Collector, by his order dated 8/2/1974 (Ex. 26) set aside the orders of the Gram Panchayat, and directed the Panchayat to restore the material belonging to the petitioners which was taken away by the petitioner at the time of removal of the alleged obstruction from the way. It has been urged that the impugned orders of the Panchayat are appealable under Sections 26-A and 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, (which will hereinafter be called as the Act), as these orders do not fall under any of the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 27-A which provides for revision. On the other hand, Mr. Satyadeo Rajpurohit, who is himself non-petitioner No. 3, has argued that a revision petition did lie from the orders of the Panchayat under Section 27-A (c) of the Act.