MAHADU KASHIBA Vs. KRISHNA TATYA MAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our interlocutory judgment of June 22, 1920, we sent down two issues for determination and we are now in possession of the findings of the lower Court upon those two issues and of the materials upon which those findings are based. The first issue was "were the Panchas and the Sar-Panch appointed in this case as required by Section 18 of the Hereditary Offices Act," and upon the facts stated in the judgment of the lower appellate Court upon remand, I think that this question must be answered in the negative.

(2.) Section 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act lays down the procedure to be followed in determining the rights and duties of certain classes of Vatandars, and it is necessary before the determination can be said to have been made under that section that the provisions of that section should have been complied with at least in substance. Now what the section requires is that the Collector, if he takes action under that section, shall cause the matter in dispute to be defined in writing by a Panchayat of five persons, whereof two shall be appointed by the villagers, two by the Vatandars, and one who shall be Sar-panch by the Collector. That section further goes on to provide that in case the villagers or the Vatandars fail to nominate members within seven days, the Collector shall appoint such members as may be required to constitute a Panchayat of five.

(3.) It may be premised that the Deputy Collector who dealt with this matter had no doubt the powers of the Collector as explained in our previous judgment. It is clear, however, that the Legislature intends that the Collector shall himself appoint the Panchas in case the villagers or Vatandars fail to nominate members within seven days and also that the Sar-panch shall be appointed by him.