Partly allowed

The Sarpanch v. Manveer Singh

Supreme Court18 Aug 20232023 INSC 7692023 INSC 769

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal in part, modifying the impugned order to substitute sealing of the illegal construction with monetary deposit for school facilities and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officials involved in the unauthorized construction on playground land.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of execution with deposit of INR 10 lakhs for school facilities and initiation of disciplinary inquiry against respondents.

What the court decided

The Sarpanch versus Manveer Singh — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Supreme Court (2023)

¶1

NON-REPORTABLE

¶2

2023INSC769

¶3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5281 OF 2023
(@SLP(C) No(S).8655OF 2022)

¶5

THE SARPANCH,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, LONGWALA
PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PILIBANGA,
DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN ..APPELLANT(S)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

MANVEER SINGH AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

WITH

¶9

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.621 OF 2023

¶10

IN

¶11

(S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO(S).8655OF 2022)

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

S.V.N. BHATTI,J.

¶14

1. Leave granted.

¶15

2. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Longewala,

¶16

Signature Not Verified District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan/ Respondent No. Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.08.24 17:56:57 IST Reason: 4 in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2020 on the file

¶17

of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan is

¶18

¶19

the Appellant. The appeal arises from the Order

¶20

dated 24.01.2022.

¶21

3. The First Respondent in the Civil Appeal filed Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2020, canvassing the public interest of the villagers of the Longewala before the High Court. The following chronology is noted:

¶22

On 05.08.2019, the Panchayat passed a

¶23

resolution for upgrading the infrastructure of
the old Panchayat Bhawan from the budget
sanctioned by the Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.

¶24

On 11.12.2019, the Zila Parishad sanctioned
the proposal to upgrade the infrastructure of
the old Panchayat Bhawan.

¶25

The Appellant representing the Gram
Panchayat, on 15.03.2020, issued a work order to
one M/s A-One Construction Company to upgrade

¶26

the infrastructure of old Panchayat Bhawan.

¶27

¶28

4. The expression ‘upgradation of

¶29

infrastructure’ in the preceding narrative is
repetitive and necessary in as much as the
Appellant as available from the record deviated
from the resolution, sanction/ work order and
constructed a new building for the Gram
Panchayat in the playground of a school run by
the Education Department in the Village. The
First Respondent states and established in the
High Court that the plot of land, where new
building is constructed, is recorded in the name
of the Education Department. The two glaring
mistakes in law are that, (i) sanction is
obtained for upgradation of existing structure,
but a new building is brought into existence.
(ii) the Gram Panchayat without a right in the
land recorded in the name of Education
Department is taken over without recourseto
law. The consequences are that the village is

¶30

¶31

deprived of the playground and in the name of
upgrading infrastructure, a new building is
brought into existence. The above is the gist of
the case of the Writ Petitioner and accepted by
the Impugned Judgment. The Appellant could not
establish that the findings recorded in the
Judgment impugned warrant the interference of
this Court. We are not in detail referring to
the stand of the Appellant for good reasons.
Another reason for being brief on the
introductory circumstances is that during the
pendency of the SLP, a few developments ex-post
facto remedying partially the arbitrary exercise
of power by the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari
have been taken up and completed. These
developments are noted in the following paras.

¶32

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant informs the Court that by the

¶33

Construction of the Gram Panchayat building, the

¶34

¶35

land standing in the Education Department's name

¶36

is no doubt taken over. The comfort of a
playground is also denied to the school-going
children and the villagers. Without a challenge

¶37

to the findings in the Judgment under Appeal, he
suggests that the Court may take note of
subsequent developments substantially remedy the
grievance canvassed in the Writ Petition and
pass orders as are deemed necessary.

¶38

6. The Counsel appearing for the First

¶39

Respondent does not dispute that the playground
is earmarked and made available for the school
children of `. He argues that still the principal

¶40

grievance of demolishing a structure raised in
contravention of approvals must be examined by
this Court. We have also heard the Learned

¶41

Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan. On
instructions, we are informed that the inquiry,

¶42

as directed by the High Court, is underway and

¶43

¶44

will be expeditiously completed. For the view we
take and for proper appreciation, a few of the

¶45

findings we are confirming by this Judgment are
excerpted,

¶46

 “the Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra which exists
in the land of the playground. However, the
Appellant too was not in a position to
dispute the fact that as per the proposal
(Annexure-5), the technical sanction
(Annexure-6), the financial sanction
(Annexure-7), and the work order (Annexure-
8), the approval was made for upgradation of
the infrastructure of the old Gram Panchayat
Bhawan and none of these documents indicates
that a new Panchayat Bhawan would be
constructed. Thus, the respondents have also
not offered any justification whatsoever for
the construction of the new Panchayat Bhawan
when the existing building was constructed
just ten years ago and there is no such
information that the said building is not
suitable for the Panchayat activities or that
there are any such deficiencies in the said
building which can render it unfit for use.

¶47

 The fact regarding the construction of
the new Panchayat Bhawan being without
sanction and that the location of the site
is a playground is admitted. In the reply
filed to the writ petition, the State
Government has taken a plea that the writ
petition has been filed at a highly belated
stage.

¶48

 In wake of the above facts, we feel that
inquiry deserves to be made regarding the
conduct of respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari and
respondent No.4 Sarpanch, who abused their

¶49

¶50

powers and acted beyond jurisdiction while
raising the construction of the new Panchayat
Bhawan totally against the approved plan
proposal and the sanction. As a consequence
of the discussion made hereinabove, we have
no hesitation in holding that the
construction of the disputed building on the
land earmarked/reserved as a playground is
illegal and contrary to the Panchayat’s
proposal, technical sanction and the
financial sanction, as well as the work order
and hence, the same, has to be demolished at
the cost and responsibility of the respondent
No.2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti
Longewala and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat Longewala”.

¶51

7. The above excerpts from the Impugned Judgment

¶52

indicate that the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari/
Respondent No. 5, have not discharged the
official function or duty in the manner expected
of them or conforming to the local laws.
Therefore, the conclusions in the impugned Order

¶53

are certainly warranted and have been rightly
rendered in the Judgment impugned. Having
observed, as indicated above, the appeal must
fail. In the case, we are persuaded by the
argument for the Senior Counsel for Appellant

¶54

that the subsequent developments, avoiding waste

¶55

¶56

of public money material etc., are taken note of
by this Court, and directions proportional to

¶57

the subsequent developments, are issued.

¶58

8. Before considering the extent to which we can modify the directions, we notice that constructing a building in a playground, particularly on a plot of land standing in the name of the Education Department and without administrative sanction, is of grave concern and illegal. Gram Panchayat should represent the public interest and not occupy vacant places, parks, and grounds for its infrastructure projects. In a given case, if absolute necessity is made out for a change of user of any of the amenities/ open spaces, Gram Panchayat shall and should comply with the requirements of the law. The failure of duty and fixing of responsibility are matters of inquiry; therefore, we do not dwell on these matters more than the view already

¶59

¶60

expressed. Keeping in perspective the admitted
position viz a Playground is earmarked for
school children, demolition of a building
constructed is avoidable. The directions issued
in Para VI of the Judgment under appeal are
substituted by the following direction,

¶61

(i) The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department shall initiate disciplinary
proceedings against respondent No. 2
Vikas Adhikari and respondent No. 4
Sarpanch and ensure completion of
enquiry without further loss of time.

¶62

(ii) The State of
Respondent No. 4 is
to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-, to the
credit of the school in Longewala
village, within four weeks from receipt
of the Order. The school shall utilize
the amount so deposited for upgrading
facilities in the school. The Competent
Authority considers the need and
requirements of girl students enrolled
in the school while providing

¶63

¶64

upgradation facilities. The detailed
proposal plan for utilization of Rs.
10,00,000/-, is submitted to the
District Collector, and on approval,
the works are carried out.

¶65

(iii) The Competent Authority shall
conclude the enquiry directed against
the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari
Respondent No. 2 within four months
from today.

¶66

(iv) The State Government/
Respondent No. 4 is directed to recover
Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited in terms of
direction No. (ii), from persons found
guilty of arbitrary exercise of power
and in such proportion within six
months from today.

¶67

(v) The District Administration
ensures that the playground now
earmarked at Longewala shall continue
to serve the purpose of the playground.

¶68

(vi) The Impugned Judgment is modified
to the limited extent indicated above,

¶69

¶70

and accordingly, the Civil Appeal is
allowed in part.

¶71

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.621 OF 2023

¶72

For the view we have taken in the Civil

¶73

Appeal, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶74

................J.

¶75

[SANJIV KHANNA]

¶76

................J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]

¶77

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST, 18 2023.

¶78

The Sarpanch v. Manveer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Sarpanch v. Manveer Singh

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

Nirmala Devi versus the State of Himachal Pradesh

Shanta Rani versus Nasib Kaur

Mukesh Kumar versus S.Kuldeep Singh

Ram Kishan versus Daya Nand(D)Thr. Lrs