PUKH RAJ Vs. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this petition are that respondents Harishchandra Mehta and others made an application on 20 -7 -1969 to the Gram Panchayat, Khimel, that since the fitting of water pipes, the residents of Muthaji -ki -pol have increased the consumption of water and are discharging filthy water in large measure which collects in front of their house and has created nuisance, the residents may be directed to construct soak pits. The petitioners Pukhraj and others in reply to the notice issued by the Panchayat contended that the discharge of water from then houses passes by the same passage since times immemorial. Harishchandra and others have raised a wall of soil thereby disallowing the water to pass & causing mud. The members of the panchayat thereupon went on the site date on August 3, 1969 and noted that one such wall was raised by Pukhrajji and Sheshmalji Sons of Dhulaji, another was raised in front of the house of Dhanraj s/o Umaid Mal, 3rd one was outside the house of Pukhraj s/o Dhulaji and the 4th one was in front of the house of Pukhraj s/o Magnaji. These walls were found to have been raised by Harishchandra s/o Bagtawar Chand. By the raising of these barriers water has started collecting in the Gali, even approaches to the houses have become difficult. Mosquitoes have appeared. Danger is also there to the walls of the adjoining houses Panchayat therefore, directed that the aforesaid walls should be removed by Harijans of the Panchayat and Harishchandra and others be directed not to raise such walls in future. Again on 5 -7 -70, the Panchayat took a decision that it was not possible to construct soak pits & the water should be allowed as usual to pass through the house of Harishchandra etc. They were directed to remove the wall and refrain from raising any obstruction in future. When appeal was filed in the Panchayat Samiti, it by its order on 29 -12 -1970 cancelled the order of the Panchayat because it found that rain water alone used to pass through the house of the appellants Harishchandra and Pukhraj and the filthy discharge increased on account of water supply cannot be directed to pass through their houses. The Panchayat should acquire the land if it desires that the filthy water should pass through the houses of Harishchandra and others.

(2.) The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before the Collector, Pali. The Additional Collector who decided the appeal found that the appeal was heard by the Panchayat Samiti without notice to the respondents. But he held that since the introduction of the water supply, the discharge of water has increased and water has begun to be collected in the pol. The respondents could not allow such water to pass through their land. He also disagreed with the decision of the village Panchayat and directed that the aggrieved persons should construct soak pits as the village Panchayat cannot create drains upon personal property of others. This order of the Additional Collector is dated 29 -7 -72.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Collector, Pali, has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not setting aside the order of the Panchayat Samiti dated 29 -12 -70 which order the Panchayat Samiti passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. The petitioners pray that the orders of the Additional Collector and Panchayat Samiti be quashed and the Panchayat Samiti be directed to hear the appeal after giving notice the petitioners.