A petition by a Panchayat Samiti member challenged Gram Panchayat resolutions allotting open spaces to various institutions. The Court held that prior sanction was obtained, ownership remained with the Panchayat, and the dispute was politically motivated, dismissing the petition.
Rule discharged; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP 2748-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2748 OF 2006
Pravin Gokul Wani, Age 28 years, Occupation Business, R/o Hanuman Chowk, Nijampur Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioner
VS.
2 WP 2748-2006
| 7) | Gram Panchayat, Nijampur through Village Development Officer, Nijampur Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
|---|---|
| 8) | National Education Society through President/ Secretary Nijampur Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 9) | Nijampur- Jaitane Gram Vikas Pratisthan, through President, Secretary, Nijampur, Tal. Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 10) | Nav Yuvak Kreeda Wa Sankrutik Mandal through Chairman/ President Nijampur Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 11) | Jawaharlal Vachanalaya through Chairman/ President Nijampur, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 12) | The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Kanya Marathi Shala, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 13) | The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Urdu Shala, Nijampur Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. |
| 14) | Chandulal Vasant Jadhav, Age 45 years, Occupation Business, Ex-Sarpanch, R/o Brindavan Colony, Nijampur Dist. Dhule. |
3 WP 2748-2006
Mr. K. C. Sant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondents No.1 to 4 / State. Mr. A. B. Girase, Advocate holding for Mr. Yogesh Bolkar, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 9.
Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for respondents No.10 & 11. Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for respondents No.5, 6, 12 & 13 Mr. A. S. Savant, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. A. G. Magre, Advocate for respondents No.14 and 15.
CORAM : R. M. BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
DATE : 07-12-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi. J.)
4 WP 2748-2006
allotted to respondents No.8 to 11 and the removal of encroachment and possession of the premises from respondent No.8 to 11. Further by way of amendment, he sought cancellation of sanction accorded by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule in pursuant to the letter dated 21-02-2006 issued by Block Development Officer.
(i) National Education Society – land Gut No.2/1+2+3, Area : 836 Sq. Meters in Adinath Nagar.
(ii) Nijampur-Jaitane Gram Vikas Pratisthan- Land Gut No.3/1+2+3+4, Area : 1748 Sq. Meters, in D.S. Rane Nagar.
(iii) Nav Yuvak Kreeda Wa Sanskrutik Mandal land Gut No.6/1/5, Area : 407 Wq. Meters, in Matoshri Lilayi Rane Nagar.
(iv) Jawaharlal Vachanalay – land Gut No.7/3+7/A1+7/A-2-1, Area : 816.05 Sq. Meters in J.K.Nagar.
(v) Zilla Parishad Marathi Kanya Shala land Gut No.1,
5 WP 2748-2006
Area : 1403 Sq. Meters in Vishnu Nagar.
(vi) Zilla Parishad Urdu Shala, Land Gut No.2/1+2+3, Area : 473.05 Sq. Meters in Adinath Nagar.
(vii) Anglo Urdu High School, land in Gaothan, Area: 100 x 40 feet, on the south bank of the river Rodi.
According to the petitioner, all these allotments have been made by the respondent No.7 by passing resolutions on 25-01-2005, 27-02-2005 and 31-03-1994. According to the petitioner, the said transfer is in violation of Section 55 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the, “Village Panchayats Act”). Section 53 of the Village Panchayats Act which provides for removal of unauthorised obstruction or encroachment by the panchayat on any land which is not a private property and if the panchayat fails to remove such obstruction, the Collector can issue directions suo-moto . Petitioner had made several representations to respondent No.3- the District Collector, Dhule, for invoking his powers under Sec. 53 of the Village Panchayats Act; however there was no response. The transfer of plots, that has been made by the respondent No.7 in favour of respondents No.8 to 11, is for very meager amount, as compared to the market value of the lands. Now there is no vacant land or open space
6 WP 2748-2006
available in the entire town, as a result of the said transfer. Respondent No.7 did not stop its activity even after the transfer of the lands, but mutated the names of the private institutions i.e. respondents No.8 to 11 in the ownership column of the revenue records with electric speed. All the representations made by the petitioners have not been addressed by the respective authorities. The illegality that has been committed by respondent No.7 has caused loss to the Grampanchayat. Even the Tahsildar and the Block Development Officer are misleading their higher authorities so as to cover the illegal acts of the Grampanchayat. However, the Chief Executive Officer took serious cognizance in the matter after he had received the complaint dated 05-12-2005 and directed the Block Development Officer to take criminal action against Sarpanch and all other concerned persons. Further during the pendency of the petition amendment has been made stating that surprisingly the Block Development Officer on 2102-2006 sent the letter to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule to accord sanction to the allotments of the lands to the respondents No.8 to 11 on permanent basis. The said letter has been accepted by the Chief Officer. In his letter dated 28-02-2006, the Chief Officer has mentioned that the sanction is given for allotment of open space only to construct the Urdu and Marathi schools of Zilla Parishad. No legal
7 WP 2748-2006
sanction is given to the allotment of lands to the respondents No.8 to 11. Since the allotment itself is illegal, the same cannot be regularized, and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
8 WP 2748-2006
letter dated 21-03-2005 requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule to grant appropriate permission. The letter was again forwarded to Collector, Dhule and thereupon the Collector had passed the said order dated 08-09-2005. The Grampanchayat has acted within its power and only as per the order passed by Collector. The report was submitted by Tahsildar and thereafter sanction has been duly accorded. It has been further contended that, the petition challenging the resolutions dated 31-03-1994, 25-01-2005 and 27-02-2005 suffers on the ground of delay and latches. All the legal steps have been taken before allotment of the lands. A condition has been put on the respondents that, the 10 % of the construction on the allotted plot should be made with the permission from Sub-Divisional Officer within one year from the date of resolution. Therefore with due application of mind the allotment has been done. All of them have therefore prayed for rejection of the writ petition mainly on the ground of delay and latches as well as locus of the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondent No.7.
entire action on the part of respondent No.7 in allotting the open spaces to respondents No.8 to 11 is illegal as previous sanction has not
9 WP 2748-2006
been obtained by the Grampanchayat. It has been also pointed out that, the allotment is for very meager amount though at that time the market value of those lands was very much high. The petitioner is resident of the same village, and therefore, definitely he has locus to challenge the arbitrary action of the Grampanchayat, which is against the interest of the panchayat itself. Several representations have been made by the petitioner to the appropriate authorities from time to time, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is suffers from delay or latches. All the authorities have hand in gloves and protected each others illegality in order to legalize the illegal allotment.
10 WP 2748-2006
the open spaces. Nobody had raised objection at that time, and therefore, the sanction has been accorded. With some ulterior motive the petitioner has challenged the said action, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
“E very Panchayat shall be competent to lease, sell or
11 WP 2748-2006
otherwise transfer moveable or immoveable property which may become [vested in (otherwise than under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section (51)] or be acquired by it and to contract and do all other things necessary for the purposes of this Act. ”
The proviso prescribes that,
“ No lease of immovable property other than property referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 56 for a term exceeding three years and no sale or other transfer of any such property shall be valid unless such lease, sale or other transfer has been made with the previous sanction of the [Chief Executive Officer]. ”
Section 56 of the Village Panchayats Act deals with the property of Panchayat.
12 WP 2748-2006
letter dated 08-09-2005 the Collector, Dhule gave reference to the declaration of the Urban Development Department of the Government dated 10th June, 1996 that 10 % of the open space should be made available from the sanctioned plan, however as regards rural area there is no rule, and therefore, he directed the Grampanchayat to take action as its own level. That means, a step to obtain permission as contemplated under the proviso to Section 55 of the Village Panchayats Act was taken by the Gramapanchayat. Further as regards other respondents also there appears that by communication dated 1503-2005 steps were taken. Further it appears that, only temporary allotment was given to respondents No.8 to 11 but thereafter on 2102-2006 a sanction was accorded by the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule for permanent allotment of the open spaces for which the Gramsabha had resolved. After the said order dated 21-02-2006 only the mutations have been completed. That means, all the legal requirements have been fulfilled before permanent transfer in respect of open spaces has been made. In other words, the stipulations made in the proviso Section 55 of the Village Panchayats Act has been adhered to.
13 WP 2748-2006
the resolutions dated 31-03-1994, 25-01-2005 and 27-02-2005 by filing this petition on 04-03-2006. Especially when he was challenging the resolution dated 31-03-1994 it can be definitely said that, his action suffers from delay and latches, when he has filed present petition in 2006.
that,
“ If, in the opinion of the [Standing Committee}, the execution of any order or resolution of a Panchayat or the doing of anything which is about to be done, or is being done by or on behalf of a Panchayat, is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead a breach of peace, or [is, in the public interest, unlawful] [it] may by order in writing suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof. ”
On the basis of this provision it was tried to be submit on behalf of the respondents that, it gives alternate efficacious remedy to the petitioner. However, it is to be noted that, representations have been made by the petitioner to Collector and other authorities, They could have been treated the same and forwarded it as per Section 142 of the Village Panchayats Act to the appropriate authority for its consideration.
14 WP 2748-2006
Therefore, merely because a separate specific complaint has not been made to the standing committee by the petitioner that does not mean that alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner. Same is the case as regards Section 267 (A) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961.
15 WP 2748-2006
when the said order dated 21-02-2006 has been passed. Under such circumstance, we do not find any illegality is committed by the respondents. It appears that, the dispute was politically motivated since the petitioner was also an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti. When the acts are done in the public interest, the elected member ought not to have objected the actions. Under such circumstance the writ petition is devoid of merits, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Court Legal Services Special Committee At Aurangabad.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [R. M. BORDE] JUDGE JUDGE
vjg/-.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Gram Panchayat required prior sanction under Section 55 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act to transfer open spaces to private institutions.
Whether the allotment of land contrary to public interest is enforceable by a citizen petitioner.
Whether the dispute arose primarily from political motivation between elected members of the Panchayat.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pravin Gokul Wani
State of Maharashtra
Secretary Revenue Department
District Collector Dhule
Tahsildar Sakri
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Dhule
R. M. BORDE
VIBHA KANKANWADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
