Dismissed

Sushil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2015CWP/12404/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the bifurcation of a Gram Panchayat. The court held that policy decisions regarding bifurcation do not require judicial interference, especially where population norms are met, and availability of agricultural land is not the sole source of income for Gram Panchayats.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the bifurcation order and notification was dismissed with no case to interfere.

Sushil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.12404 of 2015 Date of Decision: July 03, 2015

¶3

Sushil Kumar and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶9

Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 13.03.2015 as well as the notification dated 19.05.2015 whereby Gram Panchayat of village Kanyawala in district Yamuna Nagar has been bifurcated into three distinct Gram Panchayats of villages Kanyawala, Darwa and Bhilpura.

¶17

The petitioners are residents of villages Bhilpura and Darwa. Their grievance appears to be that the executive instructions dated 23.03.1999 (Annexure P-5) have not been kept in view while bifurcating the Gram Panchayat and that the financial viability of the newly created Gram Panchayats was not considered at all while taking the impugned decision.

¶18

Private-respondent Nos.4 & 5 are those who had earlier filed a writ petition in this Court seeking direction for the bifurcation of Gram Panchayat. They are also residents of

¶19

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.21 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.12404 of 2015

¶22

village Bhilpura and Darwa.

¶23

It is thus sufficient to infer that there is a local politics and groupisim amongst villagers as some of them want bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat whereas the others are opposing it.

¶24

Having inferred so, we now advert to the statutory requirements. Section 7 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 empowers the State Government to declare a new Gram Panchayat and/or bifurcate the existing Gram Sabha in the following circumstances:-

¶25

“.......7. Demarcation of Sabha Area:- (1) The Government may, by notification, declare any village or a part of a village or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than five hundred to constitute one or more sabha areas:

¶26

Provided that Government may in exceptional cases, by reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the limit of population of 500:

¶27

Provided further that neither the whole nor any part of a -

¶28

(a) municipality constituted under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973;

¶29

(b) cantonment;

¶30

shall be included in a sabha area unless the majority of voters in any municipality desire the establishment of a Gram Panchayat in which case the assets and liabilities, if any, of the municipality shall vest in the Gram Panchayat and the municipality shall cease to

¶31

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.21 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

[3]

CWP No.12404 of 2015

exist.............”

It is undeniable that the total population of the three Gram Panchayat areas is more than 500 each. As regard to the alleged non-availability of Gram Panchayat land in village Darwa for its financial viability, we are of the considered view that such like policy decisions do not call for any interference by a Writ Court. Availability of agricultural land is not the only source of Gram Panchayat income. The authorities, we are sure, must have considered all such aspects before taking the subject policy-decision.

¶36

No case to interfere with the impugned order is

¶37

called for.

¶38

Dismissed.

¶39

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 03, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶40

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.21 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sushil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar Vashist and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Raj Kamal Singh and Ors.

Rajender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Guddan & Anr.

Rajender Kumar and Ors. Vs the MD Dhbvnl and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Chandigarh Amdinistration & Ors.