Transfers of whole villages between talukas were challenged for lack of consultation, arbitrariness and political interference. The Court upheld the notifications under Section 7 of the Land Revenue Code, held the Panchayats Act provisions inapplicable where village boundaries remained unchanged, and dismissed the petitions.
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.
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6357 of 2015
With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8057 of 2015 With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10152 of 2015 With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10160 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10350 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11024 of 2015 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6838 of 2015 In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5977 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5977 of 2015 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7898 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8056 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8056 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
SD/-
================================================================
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
NO |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | NO |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
NO |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of | NO |
Page 1 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
HIPAVADI VILLAGE PANCHAYAT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
===============================================================
APPEARANCE :
MR HD KACHCHHI, WITH MR PJ KANABAR & MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.6357 OF 2015
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.8056, 8057, 10152, 10160, 10350 & 11024 OF 2015
MR C.P.CHANIYARA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5977 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6838 OF 2015
MR S.P.MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant in CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7898 OF 2015 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8056 OF 2015
MS MANISHA L. SHAH, G.P. WITH MR MANAN MEHTA & MS. JYOTI BHATT, A.G.Ps for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) – Authorities
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 17/12/2015
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 2 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
of 2015, 10152 of 2015, 10160 of 2015, 10350 of 2015 and 11024 of 2015, Mr.P.J.Kanabar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6357 of 2015, Mr.C.P.Chaniyara, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.5977 of 2015 with Civil Application No.6838 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.5977 of 2015, Mr.Shashwat Shukla, for Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the applicants in Civil Application No.7898 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.8056 of 2015, Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader with Ms.Jyoti Bhatt and Mr.Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent authorities in all these matters.
Page 3 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Page 4 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
11.1.It appears from the record of the petitions that village Vanavad and Verad have population of about 1700 and 4700 respectively. It is a matter of record that both the villages were in Bhanvad Taluka falling within the jurisdiction of then Jamnagar District. It is averred by the petitioners that both the villages were in a way attached with Jamjodhpur Taluka predominantly for the reason that Jamjodhpur Taluka is well developed, wherein all basic infrastructures, facilities and requirements of the public at large exist. It is also averred by the petitioners that as such public at large were associated
Page 5 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
with Jamjodhpur Taluka only. It is contended that having realized said position, the State of Gujarat vide Notification dated 18.02.2015, included both the villages in Jamjodhpur Taluka, now Jamnagar District, whereas Bhanvad Taluka falls within Devbhumi Dwarka District. It is the say of the petitioners that after the said Notification, every exercise was completed including the revenue records. It is alleged by the petitioners that some citizens of the said villages filed representations to the Hon'ble Cabinet Ministers, In-charge of Jamnagar District on 26.07.2014. District Collector, Devbhumi Dwarka informed Talati-Cum-Mantri of village Vanavad as well as village Verad to hold the Gram Sabha for consideration of the representations received by the authorities for inclusion of both the villages in Bhanvad Taluka. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not made any such representations and informed the authorities that they oppose such request. It is alleged that so called representations are got up and the signatures are forged and fabricated. That on 14.08.2015, the representations were made by villagers of village Vanavad and on 21.08.2015, the representations were made by villagers of village Verad to various authorities including Hon'ble the Chief Minister, Cabinet Ministers inter alia contending that both villages should be kept in
Page 6 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Jamjodhpura Taluka of Jamnagar District only.
11.2 Record further reveals that on 07.10.2014, Verad Gram Panchayat passed Resolution to the effect that the village should be kept in Jamjodhpur Taluka of Jamnagar District and the said Resolution came to be adopted by Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 27.10.2014. Similarly, in case of village Vanavad, Gram Sabha passed Resolution dated 17.10.2014 resolving that village Vanavad should be kept in Jamjodhpur Taluka of Jamnagar District. It is also contended that on 07.11.2014, Taluka Panchayat of Jamjodhpur forwarded a Resolution to District Development Officer, Jamnagar recommending that villagers of both the villages want to remain in Jamjodhpur Taluka only. Even though such Resolution was passed, the State of Gujarat vide impugned Notification once again brought the villages Vanavad and Verad in Bhanvad Taluka of Devbhumi Dwarka District within a span of 9 months in absence of any circumstances. Upon coming to know about such facts, firstly villagers of both the villages filed representations dated 04.12.2015 and 05.12.2015 and as nothing was done, present petitions are filed.
Page 7 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
12.1 That village Gadhala, Lalavadar, Fulzar and Sompipaliya has population of about 1500, 5500, 5500 and 4000 respectively. Village Gadhala is situated at a distance of 32 Kms. from Vichhiya, whereas village Lalavadar is situated at a distance of 13 Kms. from Vichhiya, village Fulzar is situated at a distance of 25 Kms. from Vichhiya and village Som-Pipaliya is situated at a distance of 21 Kms. It is a matter of record that originally all four villages were part of Jasdan Taluka. However, the State Government took a decision to bifurcate Jasdan Taluka into two Talukas namely 'Jasdan' and 'Vichhiya'. It is the case of the petitioners that when bifurcation took place, all four villages passed Resolution to remain with Jasdan Taluka and villagers also filed representations to Mamlatdar, Jasdan to the said effect. It is also case of the petitioners that the villagers filed representations in the year 2013 and 2014 to various authorities including local MLAs and local Cabinet Ministers. That Jasdan is situated nearby, whereas Vichhiya is little far than the Jasdan and geographically and socially, village people of all four villages are highly affectioned and connected with Jasdan Taluka, which is more convenient for the villagers to transit and Jasdan is well connected by public transport as well as private transport to Rajkot. It is further case of the petitioners that even the Deputy
Page 8 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Collector recommended that the said four villages should be kept in Jasdan Taluka. Though the Notification is issued in the year 2013, effective administration of all four villages are connected with Jasdan Taluka only and Jasdan Mamlatdar is running Madhyahan Bhojan releasing quota of fair price shop and medical facilities are also available at Jasdan. Similarly, police station as well as telephone exchange office are also situated at Jasdan. Thus, all the activities are connected with Jasdan Taluka only. Even though the Notification issued, no effective transfer of revenue records from Jasdan Taluka to Vichhiya Taluka has taken place. It is further case of the petitioners that the decision is taken without taking assurance/consent of the village people and without calling Gram Sabha and inclusion of these villages in Vichhiya Taluka is most inconvenient for the villagers. The petitioners have specifically averred that the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3908 of 2015 came to be filed by the residents of village Ambardi, Navagam and Vadod on similar issue before this Court and this Court issued Notice on 11.03.2015. Thereafter, again those three villages have been included in Jasdan Taluka. It is alleged by the petitioners that no procedure is followed and no consultation with Gram Panchayat has taken place. It was also contended that even though such
Page 9 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
consultation is not mandatory, but directory. The same does not mean that the Government can take arbitrary action and the Government cannot be permitted to illegally exercise the powers, ignoring wish and feelings of the villagers. It is further contended that in spite of such facts, impugned Notification dated 22.12.2014 came to be issued. Upon coming to know about the same, the villagers including the petitioners filed representations to the State Government and other authorities. However, as nothing was done, present petitions are filed.
13.1 It is contended that village Hipavadi was part and parcel of Savarkundla Taluka, District Amreli. It appears from the record that vide impugned Notification dated 09.09.2013, village Hipavadi came to be included in Jesar Taluka, Bhavnagar District. It is the case of the petitioner that Gram Sabha unanimously registered its protest to such decision. Various representations were filed to the authorities such as Deputy Collector, Savarkundla and Collector Amreli etc. It is the case of the petitioner that Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly, Savarkundla as well as President of Amreli District Panchayat, Amreli also opposed such
Page 10 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
decision. Even Hon'ble the Chief Minister vide communication dated 17.06.2014 addressed to MLA, Savarkundla, informed that appropriate instructions are given to the concerned department. However, by subsequent Notifications dated 18.02.2014 and 25.02.2014, only village Ghobapati, Jejad and Monpar were deleted from Notification dated 09.09.2013, whereas in case of the petitioner, same has been discriminated. Therefore, present petition is filed.
14.1 The petitioners who are the residents of village Bedi have challenged the decision taken by the State Government vide Notification dated 24.02.2015, whereby village Hadada and Bedi have been included in Rajkot Taluka from Tankara of Morbi District. It is the case of the petitioners that both the villages originally belonged to the Morbi State and both the villages derived their regular needs from Tankara. Originally since the independence, both Hadada and Bedi were the part of Morbi Taluka, Rajkot District. It is a matter of record that on bifurcation of Rajkot District into Morbi District, Tankara was declared as Taluka and even after such bifurcation, both the villages were included in Tankara Taluka of Morbi District as per
Page 11 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
wish of the people at large. It is alleged by the petitioners that on 03.10.2013, village Hadada was included in Rajkot Taluka and vide Notification dated 18.02.2014, village Bedi was included in Rajkot Taluka. Thereafter, villagers of both the villages filed representations to the respective Members of Parliament requesting them to put back both the villages in Tankara Taluka of Morbi District. Thereafter, both Gram Panchayats also passed Resolution dated 29.09.2014 in case of village Bedi and on 30.09.2014 in case of village Hadada as per the wish of people of both the villages.
representations through their advocates and as no reply was received, present petition is filed.
Page 12 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
affidavits along with the maps, rules of business etc.
17.1 That Jamjodhpur is fully developed Taluka and it has facilities of private colleges, industrial training center, diamond industries, APMC market, private hospitals and infrastructures etc. That people from villages Vanavad and Verad go for shopping and purchase to Jamjodhpur only, whereas Bhanvad Taluka has no such facilities. Transport facilities for going to Jamjodhpur is frequently available, whereas for going to Bhanvad, the transport facility is not frequently available. Even the revenue offices are situated very far from the bus stand at Bhanvad and Bhanvad does not have any S.T.Depot. It was also contended that the villagers of village Vanavad and Verad sell their agricultural produce at APMC, Jamjodhpur because they get good price at Jamjodhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned action is taken only at the behest of political interference on the basis of got up representations and even though both the
Page 13 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
villagers were included in Jamjodhpur Taluka, have been arbitrarily brought back to Bhanvad Taluka. The discretion of the Government cannot be misused arbitrarily in such a manner. Both these villages have been discriminated, whereas village Sonvadiya which is a very near to Bhanvad has been included in Jamjodhpur Taluka. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the impugned decision taken by the Government is not bona fide or in the interest of public at large. The geographical situation of both the villages clearly indicates that it is directly connected to Jamjodhpura Taluka and if it is transferred to Bhanvad Taluka, people shall find it difficult to attend their revenue works at Bhanvad. Therefore, the impugned action is against the wish of the people of the village, who have in the Gram Sabha resolved to remain in Jamjodhpur Taluka and thus, the impugned action is violative of Article 243 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that day to day activities of both the villages are more with Jamjodhpura Taluka in comparison to Bhanvad Taluka.
Page 14 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
No.8057 of 2015 as a lead matter. In all these three petitions, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned action of the State Government is erroneous, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The Government having exercised powers once, upon examining the proposals and opinions of the authority namely Collector, District Development Officer etc. and after deliberation in the Cabinet meeting, chaired by Hon'ble the Chief Minister, decided to include the villages Vanavad and Verad in Jamjodhpur Taluka and therefore, no one has challenged the decision. It is not open for the Government to reconsider its legislative power on account of political interference by Hon'ble the Chief Minister. It was further contended that it is settled law that formation of village is a judicial power exercised by Committee of the Cabinet Ministers as conferred by the Constitution and therefore, legislative function cannot be reviewed, if someone makes representation from village. It was contended that as provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, legislative function cannot be reviewed unless there is direction by the Court or compelling circumstance and for that, the Government is required to follow the procedure. Before making any such change, the Government has to invite suggestions or objections from the respective
Page 15 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
panchayat, District Development Officer and other authorities. In the present case, no material is produced on record to show that under which circumstances, power of delegated legislation is sought to be reviewed when the Government has already taken a conscious decision earlier.
18.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the powers under Section 7 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short) is legislative function in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and because of political interference, the same has resulted into injustice to the public at large. It was contended that the legislative power once exercised cannot be changed merely because someone does not like it. In the instant case, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can judicially review the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the powers are to be utilized for welfare of public at large and it should be exercised very consciously, not for personal gains. Taking example of the matter relating to villages Vanavad and Verad, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as such, the State Government has changed its decision thrice and the public at large cannot be treated like 'shuttle cock' while exercising powers of delegated legislation, the
Page 16 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Government has not followed the procedure as provided under Section 7 of the Code. The State Government has already taken into consideration the opinion of the Cabinet Ministers ignoring the Resolution of Gram Sabha and therefore, the impugned decision is politically motivated. It was contended that the powers are not exercised by the Government for bona fide purpose as can be seen from the facts emerging from the affidavit of the State. Even though Section 7 of the Code does not provide for any definite procedure, the very provision provides for division of District into Talukas, Talukas into Mahals and villages and this power is piece of delegated legislation to bifurcate the State in three tier system giving more power to the local authorities. It was contended that considering the provisions of Article 40 read with Article 243 of the Constitution, while taking impugned decision, the State Government has considered the pressure of the Ministers more than what was decided in Gram sabha and while exercising power of delegated legislation. It was further submitted that it was not open for the Government to override the provisions of Article 243(b) of the Constitution, otherwise the purpose of the said provision would get frustrated. The object and purpose of Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) clearly
Page 17 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
provides for consultation with the Gram Sabha. It was further contended that in order to see that the decision is just, fair and proper and it was for the benefit of the people at large, reasons are to be recorded on the file. However, in the instant case, no reasons for change are found from the stand taken by the Government and therefore, the impugned Notification is bad and illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 7 of the Act. Purpose of the said provisions is for organization and earmarking and such decision cannot be changed frequently, otherwise it would mean that earlier powers were exercised without proper application of mind that to mechanically. It was also contended that the powers cannot be exercised time and again and what weighed with the Government to change the earlier decision, is to be reflected in the decision making process itself and the same cannot be substituted by filing further affidavits before this Court. It was thus, submitted that the impugned decision is bad and illegal and hence, the present petitions deserve to be allowed as prayed for.
Mr.B.T.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) AIR 1996 SC 430 (ii) AIR 2006 SC 980 (iii)1987 SC 1239 (iv) 2007 (2) SCC 1
Page 18 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
(v) 1995 (suppl.) 2 SC 305 (vi) 2004(2) GLR 640 (vii)1995 suppl. (4) SCC 139
in Special Civil Application No.6357 of 2015 has relied upon the factual matrix arising in the said petition. It was contended that village Hipavadi was originally part of Savarkundla Taluka, Amreli District since it existence in the year 1961. However, by impugned Notification, said village is now included in Jesar Taluka, Bhavnagar District. Relying upon the factual matrix arising in this petition, it was contended that the impugned Notification was never a matter of division to be divided into Districts, but was a matter of recommendation specification of village and can only be done after consulting the petitioner as provided under Section 7 of the Code. It was, therefore, contended that it is incumbent upon the State Government to follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 7 of the Act and the State Government cannot fall back of Section 7 of the Act. It was contended that the distance between village Hipavadi and Amreli is 67 Kms., whereas distance between village Hipavadi and Bhavnagar is 103 Kms. It was contended that Jesar Taluka is newly constituted Taluka and there are no facilities like hospital, Civil Court, Prant Office, RTO Office and DLR Office, whereas all these
Page 19 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
facilities are available in Savarkundla Taluka. Relying upon the Government Resolution dated 25.05.2000, it was contended that the Resolution of the concerned village Panchayat stating its willingness to accept bifurcation is mandatory. Impugned Notification is issued under Section 7 of the Code and no procedure is prescribed under Section 7 of the Act is followed. Impugned Notification is issued on account of extraneous circumstances and political pressure. Relying upon the affidavit in reply filed by the State Government, it was contended that when bifurcation is made by the State Government, the petitioner Panchayat has never invited or no consultation is made even before issuing impugned Notification. Further relying upon the affidavit filed by the State Government, it was submitted that by two different Notifications dated 18.02.2014 and 25.02.2014, village Ghobapati, Jejad and Monpar have been put in Savarkundla Taluka, whereas the petitioner panchayat is discriminated. It was contended that even the affidavits, which are filed by the State Government it has been stated that it has followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 7 of the Code. The stand of the State Government is not clear and it has been wrongly stated that the decision is taken on basis of some representations received. However, the fact remains that such decision is taken under Section 7 of the Code and it
Page 20 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
is a matter of fact that the petitioner Panchayat has not been consulted before taking any such action as provided under Section 7 of the Act. It was submitted that the provisions of the Code cannot be applied in the present case where the effect of the Notification has resulted into bifurcation of village Panchayat. It was also contended that the competent authority under Section 7 of the Act would be the Development Commissioner and not the Settlement Commissioner. It was also contended that in view of 73rd Amendment in the Constitution of India, the respondent authority could not have issued Notification without following the provisions of the Act.
Mr.P.J.Kanabar, learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the following judgments as well as the provisions of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, Sections 2.4, 7, 254 and 256 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and Article 243 and 243(A) of the Constitution of India:-
(I) 1986 (1) GLH 247 (II) 2004 (2) GLH 640 (iii)2009 JX (GUJ.) 444 (iv)2000 (2) GLR 1263
Section 9 : Declaration of Nagar and Gram
(1) After making such inquiries as may be prescribed, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any local area, comprising a revenue village, or group of revenue villages or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, or such other administrative unit
Page 21 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
or part thereof -
(a) to be a nagar, if the population of such local area does not exceed 10,000;
(b) to be a gram, if the population of such local area does not exceed 10,000; provided that if in the case of a local area, which is eligible for being declared as a nagar under clause
(a), the State Government, having regard to the geography, extent of urban development and such other factors in relation to that area as may be prescribed and after consulting the local authority if any, constituted for such local area is of the opinion that the local area should be declared to be a gram, the State Government may by a like notification declare the local area to be a gram;
Provided further that if in the case of a local area, which is eligible for being declared as a gram under clause (b), the State Government having regard to the geography, extent of urban development and such other factors in relation to that area as may be prescribed and after consulting the local authority, if any, constituted for such local area is of the opinion that the local area should be declared to be a nagar the State Government may by a like notification declare the local area to be a nagar
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and section 4 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (Guj.) 34 of 1964) if the State Government having regard to the geography, extent of urban development and such other factors in relation to a municipal borough as may be prescribed, and after consulting, is of the opinion that the area comprised in the municipal borough be declared to be a gram or nagar, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the area comprised in the municipal borough and specified in the notification to be a gram or nagar.
(2) After consultation with the Talukapanchayat, the district panchayat and the nagar or gram panchayat concerned (if already constituted) the State Government may, by like notification at any time-
(a)include within, or exclude from, any nagar or gram any local area or otherwise alter the limits of any nagar or gram;
(b)declare that any local area shall cease to be a nagar or gram; “or”
(c) having regard to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (8), declare the whole area comprised in a gram or the part thereof to be a nagar ot two or more grams or the whole area comprised in a nagar to be a gram or split up the area comprised in the nagar into a nagar and a gram or into two or more grams;] and thereupon the local area shall be so included or excluded, or the limits of the nagar or gram so altered or the local area shall cease to be a nagar or gram, as the case may be, the area declared to be a nagar or gram shall be a nagar, or gram as the case may be.
Page 22 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Section 2.4-”competent authority” means such Government Officer, panchayat or authority as the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint to perform the functions of a competent authority under such provisions of this Act and in respect of such panchayats as may be specified in the said notifications.
Section 7-Recommendation specifications of village :-
(1) After making such inquiries as may be prescribed, the competent authority may recommend any local area comprising a revenue village, or a group or revenue villages, or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, for being specified a village under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution if the population of such local area does not exceed fifteen thousand.
(2) After consultation with the taluka panchayat, the district panchayat and village panchayat concerned (if already constituted), the competent authority may at any time recommend inclusion within or exclusion from any villages any local area or otherwise alternation of limits of any village, or recommend cesser of any local area to be a village, to the Governor for exercise of his powers under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution.
Section 254 - Consequences of alteration of limits of
village
254 (1) When by a notification under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution, the limits of a village is altered so as to -
(a) Include any area therein, or (b) exclude any area there from, the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time in force, by order published in the Official Gazette, provide for all or any of the following matters namely :-
(i) in a case falling under clause (a) , the increase in the number of the members of the village panchayat by election of additional members,
(ii) in a case falling under clause (b), the removal of the members of the village panchayat, who in the opinion of the State Government represent the area excluded from the village:
Provided that where the area so excluded had been included in any other village, the members so removed shall be additional members of the panchayat of such village,
(iii) the term of additional members and the manner of filling casual vacancies; (iv) allocation of any officer or servant of the panchayat affected by the alteration of the limits.
Page 23 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
(2) The panchayat, if any, constituted for the village and functioning immediately before the alteration of the limits shall, subject to the addition or exclusion of members under sub-section (1), continue to function until the expiry of its duration under this Act and on such expiry it shall be reconstituted in the manner provided in this Act.
(3) If an altering the limit of any village, the area excluded there from is included in any other village, then-
(a) such portion of the village fund, debts obligations and other property of the village from which the area is so excluded shall be transferred to and shall vest in, the panchayat of the village in which the area is excluded as the State Government may b order in writing direct;
(b) the rights and liabilities of the panchayat in respect of any contracts, agreements and other matters and things, arising in or relating to the area so excluded shall vest in the panchayat of the village in which the area is so included.
(c) any notice, Tax fee, cess, order, licence, permission, rule or bye-law issued, imposed, granted or made in respect of the area so excluded shall be deemed to have been issued, imposed, granted or made in respect of the panchayat in which the area is so included and shall continue in force until it is superseded under the provisions of the law applicable thereto;
(d) all proceedings relating to the area excluded from the village and pending before the panchayat on the date of such exclusion shall be transferred to and disposed off by the panchayat of the village in which the area is included.
“Section 256 – Effect of area ceasing to be village – On any area ceasing to be a village by virtue of any notification under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution of India,
(a) the panchayat shall be dissolved and all members of the panchayat shall vacate office as from the date of the notification;
(b) the unexpected balance of the fund of the panchayat and the property (including arrears of rates, taxes and fees) vesting in the panchayat shall vest in the State Government to be utilized for the benefit of the inhabitants of the areas as the State Government thinks fit.”
Article 243 - Definitions In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) district" means a district in a State,
(b) Gram Sabha means a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level;
(c) intermediate level means a level between the village and
Page 24 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
district levels specified by the Governor of a State by public notification to be the intermediate level for the purposes of this Part;
(d) Panchayat means an institution (by whatever name called) of self government constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas;
(e) Panchayat area means the territorial area of a Panchayat;
(f) population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published;
(g) village means a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village for the purposes of this Part and includes a group of villages so specified
Article 243A. Gram Sabha – A Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide.”
Page 25 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Government Pleader has revisited the factual matrix arising in this group of petitions and has submitted that prior to 1997, the State of Gujarat was divided into 13 Districts and in the year 1997, 5 new Districts came to be added namely Porbandar, Navsari, Narmada, Dahod and Anand. Thereafter, in the year 2012, originally Surat came to be bifurcated into Tapi District. Thereafter, w.e.f 13.08.2013, 7 new Districts came to be constituted being Aravali from Sabarkantha, Gir-Somnath from Junagadh, Botad from Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar, Chhota-Udaipur from Vadodara, Mahisagar from Kheda and Panchmahal, Morbi from Rajkot, Jamnagar and Surendranagar, and Devbhumi Dwarka from Jamnagar and thereby, the State of Gujarat has now 27 Districts and 250 Talukas. Considering the factual matrix of Special Civil Application Nos.8056 and 8057 of 2015, it was pointed out that Jamnagar District originally consisted of 10 Talukas and upon constitution of new District i.e. Jamnagar, 6 Talukas namely Jamnagar, Dhrol, Jamjodhpur, Kalavad, Lalpur and Jodiya are now in Jamnagar District and 4 Talukas namely Khambhaliya, Okhamandal
Page 26 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
(Dwarka), Bhanvad and Kalyanpur are now in Devbhumi Dwarka District. It was pointed out that because of division of 2 Districts, Jamjodhpur Taluka continued to remain in Jamnagar District and Bhanvad came to be included in Devbhumi Dwarka District.
Page 27 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
include Krushnagadh, Vanavad and Verad from Bhanvvad Taluka as it originally existed to Jamjodhpur Taluka in Jamnagar District. It was further pointed out that on 15.10.2014, the Settlement Commissioner made a representation before the entire Cabinet and the issue of village Krushnagadh, Vanavad and Verad was put before the entire Cabinet at item No.20. In addition to that, it was further pointed out that vide Government Resolution dated 02.06.2014, the State Government has appointed Hon'ble Ministers as Prabhari Mantri and in some cases, additionally a Minister of the State has been appointed as Co-Prabhari Mantri. In the instant case, Hon'ble Minister Shri Babubhai Bokhiriya has been appointed as Prabhari Mantri for Jamnagar, Junagadh and Devbhumi Dwarka Districts and Hon'ble Minister Shri Jasabhai Bhanabhai Barad has appointed as a Co-Prabhari Mantri for Jamnagar and Devbhumi Dwarka Districts. It was submitted that on 29.10.2014, Shri Babubhai Bokhiria, Prabhari Mantri for Jamnagar, Junagadh and Devbhumi Dwarka Districts recommended Hon'ble the Chief Minister to retain Krushnagadh, Verad and Vanavad villages in Bhanvad Taluka. Similarly, on 01.11.2014, Shri Nitin Patel, Hon'ble Minister for Health has made a similar recommendation. It was further pointed out that thereafter on 25.11.2014, the entire cabinet approved the recommendation of Settlement
Page 28 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Commissioner for retaining Krushnagadh, Vanavad and Verad villages in Bhanvad Taluka, Devbhumi Dwarka District. It was further submitted that entire file was moved to the highest authority in the State and final decision was taken at the level of Hon'ble the Chief Minister as proposed by the concerned department and that, no further change is to be made and these three villages namely Krushnagadh, Vanavad and Verad to continue to remain in Bhanvad Taluka. In case of village Lalavadar, which relates to Special Civil Application No.10152 of 2015, vide Notification dated 09.09.2013, Taluka Vichhiya came to be added to Rajkot District.
Page 29 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
communications received from the District Collector, Surendranagr as well by the Cabinet and it has been decided that village Madava Kaduka, Godladhar, Navagam, Vadod and Ambardi may be included in Jasdan Taluka and excluded from Vichhiya Taluka. In case of village Som Pipaliya, the entire issue was placed before the Government and entire Cabinet took collective decision and in the said meeting, similar decision was taken in case of village Som Pipaliya, Fulzar as well as Gadhala. It has given rise to Special Civil Application No.10160 of 2015, 10350 of 2015 and 10152 of 2015. In case of village Hipavadi, which relates to Special Civil Application No.6357 of 2015, vide Notification dated 13.08.2013, Bhavnagar District comprises of 9 Talukas and Amreli District comprises of 11 Talukas. The Cabinet approved the proposal for constitution of Jesar Taluka from Bhavnagar District and Amreli District on 04.09.2013. Vide Notification dated 09.09.2013, Jesar Taluka was newly constituted from Mahuva, Gariyadhar and Palitana Taluka from Bhavnagar District and Savarkundla Taluka from Amreli District. Jesar Taluka was included in Bhavnagar Taluka vide Notification dated 09.09.2013 after the same was approved by the Cabinet. It is further pointed out that village Hipavadi was included in Jesar Taluka. As per the information given by the Settlement Commissioner, distance
Page 30 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
between village Hipavadi and headquarter of Savarkundla is 32 Kms, whereas it situated at a distance of 8 Kms. away from the headquarter of Jesar Taluka. In the Cabinet, case of village Hipavadi was placed before the entire Cabinet on 06.02.2014 and in the said meeting, it was considered by the Cabinet and decided to keep village Hipavadi in Jesar Taluka. Similarly in case of village Hadada and Bedi, which relates to Special Civil Application No.5977 of 2015, vide Notification dated 13.08.2013, Morbi District was carved out from Rajkot District and thereby, Rajkot District comprises of 10 Talukas and newly added Morbi District comprises of 5 Talukas. On 23.06.2014. representations were received from the Hon'ble Health Minister, Member of Parliament, Rajkot and the same were considered by the Cabinet and it was decided that village Hadada and Bedi be included in Rajkot Taluka of Rajkot District from Tankara Taluka of Morbi District. The Settlement Commissioner made a representation on 15.10.2014 and at item No.22, entire cabinet of State Hadada and Bedi village be included in Tankara Taluka of Morbi District and accordingly, Notification dated 27.11.2014 came to be issued. The said decision was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application No.18346 of 2014 and this Court was pleased to grant Stay against the Notification dated
Page 31 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
27.11.2014. It was pointed out that therefore, the matter was again placed before the Cabinet for consultation and at item No.26 on 11.02.2015, it was reconsidered by the Cabinet and it was decided to shift from village Bedi and Hadada from Tankara Taluka of Morbi District to Rajkot Taluka, Rajkot District. Ms.Shah, learned Government Pleader has relied upon the affidavit filed by the State and has also relied upon the maps, which are annexed with the affidavit and has submitted that the Settlement Commissioner while making proposal, which has been ultimately approved by the entire Cabinet is passed upon the topographical and geographical location of each village. It was further pointed out that the impugned decisions is taken after following the procedure and the procedure which is followed in relation to inclusion or exclusion of villages from Talukas is as under:-
(i) Oral or written representation may be received from various sources such as Panchayat, villagers, Office bearers of the concern villages, which are sent either directly or through the Prabhari Mantri or Co-Prabhari Mantri or any Hon'ble Ministers or even directly to Hon'ble the Chief Minister and even directly to the Settlement Commissioner.
(ii) Such representations are considered and
Page 32 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
recommendation is made by Settlement Commissioner for inclusion or exclusion of various villages considering the various aspects like population, financial condition, total area, economic aspects, social aspects, administrative aspects the nature and topography of the area concerned etc.
(iii)Recommendations were considered by the Cabinet SubCommittee. However, now all these recommendations are put before the entire Cabinet and such decision is collective decision of the Cabinet which prevails.
(iv) Recommendations of the Cabinet is forwarded to the State Government and the decision taken by the Government is by way of in the name of the Government.
(i) The Code prescribes for division to be divided into
Page 33 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
districts with such limits as may from time to time be prescribed by a duly published order of the State Government.
(ii) Each District under the Code shall consist of such Talukas, and each Taluka shall consist of such Mahals and villages, as may from time to time be prescribed by the order of the State Government.
(iii)In each of the case, decision is taken by the entire Cabinet. In general, it was pointed out that nowadays change in the modern times, the growth of population, the administrative demands in a village, Taluka and District, which requires change constantly. While inclusion or exclusion of villages in various Talukas, care is taken to make sure that the Talukas get divided equally, initially for border villages some issues would arise.
(iv) Required facilities are extended to the last village in the Taluka and availability to the head quarters of the Talukas makes public administrative effective and welfare measures ultimately reach the farthest village of the Taluka.
(v) Because of incorporation of new Taluka, the State Government would be setting up additional administrative infrastructure with additional budgetary allocation.
Page 34 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
(vi) Initially some teething problems may arise, however, once the facilities are created, every people can utilize such facilities at nearest place.
(vii)It was further submitted that for revenue purposes, the load on administration gets substantially reduced. Giving example, if one Mamlatdar is required to handle revenue records of 5000 villagers with equitable distribution of population between different Talukas, the load to be managed by Mamlatdar would naturally be reduced, which would result into accurate maintenance of revenue records. Population balance is a vital criteria while considering the Talukas and Villages. It was also pointed out that the Notifications are duly in form of duly published order and the decision is taken purely for administration purpose. It was contended that hearing or consultation is not mandatory and scope of judicial review by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very very limited. Requirement read by the petitioners are under the Panchayat Act, whereas the State Government has taken decision under the provisions of Section 7 of the Code and the purpose to ensure that all amenities to reach the land village and further purpose of the Government is to consider the development of the whole area. As such there
Page 35 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
is no determination of village, but there is only change of local Government. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act relates to constitution of new village and Section 7(2) of the Act would apply only if the boundary of the village is altered. Provisions of Section 254 of the Act would not be applicable and similarly provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act is totally inapplicable in the present cases. In case of Special Civil Application Nos.8056 and 8057 of 2015, originally Vanavad and Verad villages were included in Bhanvad Taluka itself and in all the cases, decisions are taken by the entire cabinet. It was therefore, submitted that considering all the relevant aspects including geographical factors, economic factors, financial conditions, total population, the Settlement Commissioner sent recommendation, which has been considered by the entire cabinet and thereafter, the Notifications have been issued in each of the petitions. Hence, the petitions are misconceived and the same deserve to be dismissed.
Page 36 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
not correct and also contended that the entire material was not placed before the Cabinet and therefore, the same has affected decision, which are impugned in these petitions.
No other or further submissions are made by learned counsel for the respective parties.
(i) Original files were made available for perusal of the Court. As far as Special Civil Application Nos.8056 and 8057 of 2015 are concerned, it was found that the file was moved by Additional Chief Secretary, revenue Department on 24.11.2014, which was then signed by the Chief Secretary, Hon'ble Minister of Finance and Hon'ble the Chief Minister. It further appears that on 25.11.2014, a proposal was placed before the entire Cabinet of the State by circulation and it is found that it was subject item No.71, which came to be approved. It further indicates that the Cabinet Unit of General Administrative Department
Page 37 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
of the State of Gujarat in turn intimated the Revenue Department about such approval on 26.11.2014 and accordingly, Notification came to be issued.
(ii) In case of Special Civil Application Nos.10152 of 2015, 10350 of 2015, 10160 of 2015 and 11024 of 2015, which relate to village Lalavadar, Kansoliya, Gadhala, Fulzar and Som Pipaliya, file came to be moved by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department on 31.08.2013. Noting further indicates that the file was thereafter placed before the Chief Secretary and the same was approved on 31.08.2013. The file was then placed before the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat, Law and Justice and it was approved by the Minister concerned on 02.09.2013. On the next day, the file was placed before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister and Hon'ble Finance Minister, which was approved on 03.09.2013 and thereafter, ultimately, it was approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Minister. Original record further indicates that the proposals were placed before the entire Cabinet at Subject Item No.124 on 04.09.2013 and the same were approved. The Cabinet Unit of GAD informed the Revenue Department on 07.09.2013 about such approval and thereafter, Notification in question came to be issued.
(iii)In case of Special civil Application No.6357 of 2015,
Page 38 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
notings are as per the contents of Special Civil Application No.10152 of 2015 and allied matters and the same was placed before the Cabinet on the same day i.e. on 04.09.2013 at Subject Item No.124 and rest of the details are found to be similar.
(iv) In case of Special Civil Application No.5977 of 2015, which relates to village Hadada and Bedi. The file came to be moved before the Revenue Department on 20.01.2015. The file was thereafter, placed before the Chief Secretary, which was approved on 27.01.2015 and thereafter, file was signed by the Hon'ble Finance Minister as well as Hon'ble the Chief Minister, who is incidentally Revenue Minister also. It further appears that thereafter, the proposal was placed to entire Cabinet on 11.02.2015 as Subject Item No.96 and the same was approved. Record further indicates that Cabinet Unit of GAD intimated the Revenue Department on 20.02.2015 and thereafter, the impugned Notification came to be issued.
Page 39 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the State Government has undertaken the exercise right upto the entire Cabinet and thereafter, impugned Notifications have been issued.
Page 40 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
and after its examination by the entire Cabinet as well as the highest authorities in the State, Notifications are issued in all these petitions. Even considering the maps, which are forming part of the record of the petitions, when a Taluka is created and/or particular village is made a part of existing Taluka, geographical location is an important factor. The State Government while dividing Taluka into Mahals or villages as provided under Section 7 of the Code has to draw a line somewhere and in cases on hand, such exercise has been undertaken by the State Government. On perusal of the maps in each case, after deliberation decision is taken by the respondent authorities, which in opinion of this Court is within the domain of the State Government. Even considering the procedure which is followed, the same is as per the Rules of business as provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The contention that once the decision was taken, it cannot be changed, cannot be read into as canvassed, while exercising the powers under Section 7 of the Code by the State Government. It is brought on record by the State Government that the Settlement Commissioner on basis of the material on record, placed the proposal before the Government, which has been examined by the entire Cabinet and thereafter, the Notifications have been issued and therefore, it
Page 41 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
cannot be said that the Government has no power under Section 7 of the Code to take fresh decision.
Page 42 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
particularly by Mr.Bharat Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners also does not hold good in facts of the case. Even at the cost of repetitions, it deserves to be noted that village Vanavad and Verad were originally in Bhanvad Taluka itself. Similarly village Som Pipaliya, Fulzar, Gadhala and Lalavadar are now forming part of Vichhiya Taluka, geographically would not make any vital or sizable difference. It was also contended that the decision taken by the State Government is arbitrary and not bona fide, which also deserves to be negatived in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held by Catena of decisions, which are referred to hereinabove, Section 7 of the Code does not provide for any procedure and therefore, concurrence or consultation is not mandatory, but only directory.
Page 43 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
counsel for the petitioners is exercised in accordance with law. Merely because it is recommended by the Cabinet Ministers, it cannot be considered that it was for any personal gains and the Hon'ble Ministers as representatives of the people were well within their powers to make such recommendations, more particularly in case where they are appointed as Prabhari Mantri and CoPrabhari Mantri as can be culled out from the record of the petitions. As noted hereinabove, in each of the cases, entire Cabinet has taken a decision and therefore, it cannot be labelled as bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code. Except bare allegations, there is no material on record and it does not even borne out from the original record that the decision taken in each matter is taken for any mala fide purpose. In each of the cases, no boundaries of villages are altered, only exercise which is taken by the State Government is under Section 7 of the Code. No new village is created. By exercise undertaken by the State Government under Section 7 of the Code, the whole without there being any change in its local boundary from a particular Taluka to another Taluka and therefore, Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act shall not apply in the instant cases. While undertaking exercise in question, the State Government has not merged any village into any other local area. Even the word 'Taluka' as defined under the
Page 44 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Act means Taluka constituted from time to time under the Land Revenue Code except the area or which the Taluka Panchayat has no authority under Section 6 of the Act and the word 'village' would mean a village specified by the Governor by public Notification to be a village for the purposes of this part and includes a group of villages so specified as specified in Part IX of the Constitution and the same would also include group of villages so specified as provided under Article 243G of the constitution of India. Therefore, the exercise which is undertaken by the State Government is not for constitution of any new village and no boundaries of any village is altered and therefore, Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act shall have no application in the present cases. Similarly as there is no alteration in the limits of any the village in the case on hand, Section 254 and 255 of the Act will have no application.
Page 45 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the Code, none of the area has gone out of institution of self Government and therefore, as decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat Panchayat Parishad Vs. State of Gujarat , all contentions as regards the applicability of Sections 9 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 as well as Sections 254 and 255 of the Act, deserve to be negatived and the powers of the State Government under section 7 of the Code cannot be disputed. The contention that the competent authority is not Settlement Commissioner, but the competent authority would be the Development Commissioner also deserves to be negatived as no action as envisaged under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act has been undertaken by the State Government. It is no doubt true that even in the instant cases, this Court has power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in light of the aforesaid observations, even exercising such limited power of judicial review, this Court finds that the decision taken by the State Government is neither arbitrary nor mala fide and the State Government has taken a conscious decision at its highest level and by the entire Cabinet in each cases as narrated hereinabove and therefore, no interference of this Court is called for even in its limited jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even taking into
Page 46 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
consideration the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of I.R.Coelho (Dead) By LRS. Vs. State of T.N. [(2007) 2 SCC 1] , this Court has wide powers, however, in facts of these cases, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the State Government is such that it warrants interference by this Court by way of judicial review. In view of the aforesaid observations the material on record, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the State Government for including the villages in question in different Takukas as observed hereinabove cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and therefore, the petitions are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.
Page 47 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Page 48 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
aforesaid, the ratio laid down in the case of Rameshwarprasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. [AIR 2006 SC 980] shall not be applicable in the present case.
Page 49 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
bifurcation of village Lalpur.
Page 50 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Government has not properly verified the facts. This Court is satisfied with the procedure followed by the Government and even though it may be open for this Court in exercise of judicial review to examine the same, on examination of some original files of the Government, it is found that the decision taken in each case by the entire Cabinet after the Settlement Commissioner made his report considering all relevant aspects including the topography and geography location of the village in question and also on appreciating the objections/suggestions received.
“1. Issues raised in these petitions are same. Learned counsel appearing on either side prayed for final disposal of these petitions by a common judgment. Accordingly, we heard them in detail. We are disposing of these petitions by this common judgment.
- The stand taken by the State Government in these petitions is that Government have power to reorganise Districts and Talukas as per the provisions contained in
Page 51 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Government have no intention to dissolve any District Panchayat or Taluka Panchayat and to appoint Administrator. Geographical boundaries of certain Districts and Talukas were changed. Six new Districts were carved out and 46 new Talukas have been constituted. The reorganisation of Districts and Talukas affected the geographical boundaries of 12 existing Districts. Consequently, the geographical boundaries of 18 existing Districts underwent change. Likewise, by reconstitution of 46 new Talukas, boundaries of nearly 80 Talukas were affected. So far, no order has been issued regarding the division or reconstitution of new District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats. Orders in terms of provisions contained in Section 264 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 have to be issued, constituting or reconstituting District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats. Reorganisation of Districts and Talukas and consequent change in the boundaries of District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats do not constitute delimitation of constituencies in the Panchayat and so, Section 16 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act has no relevance to the issue before the Court. 9. Article 243(a) of the Constitution defines district' as meaning a District in a State. Clause (d) of that Article defines Panchayat' as "an institution of selfgovernment constituted under Article 243-B, for the rural areas. As per clause (e), "Panchayat area" means "the territorial area of a Panchayat". According to clause (g), `village' means "a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village". Article 243-B deals with constitution of Panchayats. It states that there should be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels. The said constitution of the Panchayat must be in relation to the Panchayat area. That area is to be at village level, intermediate level, i.e. Taluka level, and District level. What should be the village is to be decided by the Governor or the State Government by Notification in the Gazette. As per the constitutional provision, the Panchayat area so constituted should be an institution of self-government. That institution of self-government should not be interfered with. By reconstitution of the Panchayat area, if any portion of that area falls outside the jurisdiction of an institution of self-government, that will violate the Constitutional mandate. If no part of the Panchayat area, on reconstitution or reorganization, falls outside the institution of self-government, such reconstitution or reorganisation cannot be faulted. Petitioners have no case that on reorganization of the Districts, portion of the area, which was taken out of one District and attached to another District, is taken out of an institution of self-government. By reorganisation of Districts, some portion of the area, comprised in one District Panchayat, becomes attached to another District Panchayat. The area, which thus becomes attached to the new District Panchayat, will continue to be under an institution of self-government, which exists in relation to the new District. In other words, by the
Page 52 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
reorganisation of the District and Talukas, no area will go out of an institution of self-government. It continues to be in a Panchayat, as envisaged by that term in the Constitution.
panchayat' to mean "a village panchayat, taluka panchayat or district panchayat". District' has been defined in that Act as "a district constituted from time to time under the Land Revenue Code". Likewise, `taluka' has been defined as one "constituted from time to time under the Land Revenue Code". "Village Panchayat" is defined as one "constituted under the Act". From this definition, it is clear that the Taluka Panchayat or District Panchayat should be in relation to the Taluka or District as constituted by the Government from time to time. It is in relation to such areas the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat can exist as an institution of self-government. The decision in State of U.P.and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others, AIR 1995 SC 1512 is the authority for the proposition that the State Government have the power to change the boundaries of the District and Talukas.Page 53 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Legislature wanted to exclude the provision for consultation. In other words, Legislature specifically excluded the application of principles of natural justice in the case of reorganisation or delimitation of Panchayats of other local self-government. Looking into this legislative history, it can safely be taken that Legislature expressly excluded the application of rule of natural justice. In such a situation, this Court cannot read into the provision of Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code principles of natural justice (vide Dr. Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., JT 1994(7) SC 62).”
46. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babubhai Jethabhai Parmar (supra) has observed thus:-
“10. This Court in so many reported/unreported decisions has interpreted provisions of section 7 of the Code. In the case of Patel Baldevbhai Ambalal Vs. State of Gujarat, 1998(1) GLH 932 and in the case of Gujarat Panchayat Parishad Vs. State, Special Civil Application No. 7240 of 1997 decided on 24.4.1998 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: K.Sreedharan,CJ & A.R. Dave,J.), this Court in terms held that before exercise of powers under section 7 of the Code, the Government is not bound to issue notice to the concerned Gram Panchayat and a general notice to the residents of the concerned villages. In substance, the contention that before exercising powers under section 7 of the Code for reconstitution of talukas, the Government is required to follow the principles of natural justice has been negatived by this Court. Learned Counsel Mr.Patel for the appellants, however, invited our attention to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Baldevsingh Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1987 SC 1239 and in the case of State of U.P.and ors. Vs. Pradan Sangh Kshetra Samiti and ors., AIR 1995 SC 1512. IN para 4 of the said judgment, the apex Court observed as under: "Citizens of India have a right to decide what should be the nature of their society, in which they live- agrarian, semiurban or urban. Admittedly, the way of life varies, depending upon where one lives. Inclusion of an area covered by a Gram Panchayat within a notified area would certainly involve civil consequences. In such circumstances, it is necessary that people who will be affected by the change should be given an opportunity of being heard, otherwise they would be visited with serious consequences like loss of office in Gram Panchayats, an imposition of way of life, higher incidence of tax and the like. " The apex Court made the said observations considering the facts of the case,
Page 54 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
namely that four villages inhabited by agriculturists and having a rural set up and forming part of gram panchayats under the relevant statute were sought to be constituted as notified areas under section 256 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act and in this background, the apex Court held that before the notified area was constituted, the people of the four villages should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard and the decision should have been taken after considering the views of the residents. As far as the present case is concerned, the nature of society in which the concerned villagers are shifted does not change. Only their administration is change from one taluka panchayat to another taluka panchayat.
Page 55 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Such provisions have been specifically excluded when Act No.18 was enacted in 1993. The exclusion of this provision shows that the Legislature wanted to exclude the provision for consultation. In other words, Legislature specifically excluded the application of principles of natural justice in the case of reorganisation or delimitation of Panchayats of other local self government. Looking into this legislative history, it can safely be taken that the Legislature expressly excluded the application of rule of natural justice. In such a situation, this Court cannot read into the provisions of section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code principles of natural justice (vide Dr.Rash Lal Yadav. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., JHT 1994 (7) SC 62).
Page 56 of 57
C/SCA/6357/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
and the State Government shall make all endeavour to see that all basic facilities and infrastructure is made available to the farthest village in each Taluka as per the impugned Notifications for betterment of the public at large of the respective villages, which shall now be governed by the respective Talukas as per the Notifications in question.
Consequently, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged in each petition. No costs.
SD/(R.M.CHHAYA, J.)
Suchit
Page 57 of 57
3 issues framed by the court
Could the State transfer whole villages between talukas under Section 7 of the Land Revenue Code and subsequently revise those decisions?
Did transfers without alteration of village boundaries require consultation under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993?
Were the impugned notifications arbitrary or mala fide so as to warrant judicial interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gujarat Panchayat Parishad Vs. State of GujaratFollowed¶262
Gujarat Panchayat Parishad Vs. State of Gujarat
I.R.Coelho (Dead) By LRS. Vs. State of T.N.Referred¶265
I.R.Coelho (Dead) By LRS. Vs. State of T.N. [(2007) 2 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Baldevsingh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Distinguished¶266
Baldevsingh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1239] · Who else cites this
State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti and Ors.Distinguished¶269
State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti and Ors. [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 305] · Who else cites this
Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan Vs. K.D.Rawat of his Successor in Office SecretaryDistinguished¶270
Pruthvisinh Amarsinh Chauhan Vs. K.D.Rawat of his Successor in Office Secretary [2004 (2) GLH 640]
Rameshwarprasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.Distinguished¶274
Rameshwarprasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. [AIR 2006 SC 980] · Who else cites this
State of Assam Vs. P.C.Mishra, I.A.S and OthersDistinguished¶275
State of Assam Vs. P.C.Mishra, I.A.S and Others, [1995 (suppl.) 4 SCC 139] · Who else cites this
Patel Baldevbhai Ambalal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.Followed¶276
Patel Baldevbhai Ambalal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1998 (1) GLH 932]
Lalpur Gram Panchayat Vs. State of GujaratDistinguished¶277
Lalpur Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat [2009 JX (Guj.) 444]
Bhalod Gram Panchayat Vs. State of GujaratDistinguished¶281
Bhalod Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat [1986 (1) GLR 247]
Chhani Nagarpanchayat Vs. State of GujaratDistinguished¶282
Chhani Nagarpanchayat Vs. State of Gujarat [2002 (2) GLR 1263]
Babubhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.Relied on¶287
Babubhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2001 (3) GLH 718]
6 provisions across 4 enactments
HIPAVADI VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
R.M.CHHAYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court