2007 Supreme(Bom) 1535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
A.H.JOSHI AND R.C.CHAVAN,JJ.
Gram Panchayat, Bamni, - PETITIONERS.
versus
State of Maharashtra, - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2262 OF 1987.
Decided on : 24-10-2007.

Headnote:Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Sections 3 and 6-Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 4(2)-Scheme of area of Municipal Council were sought to be amended-Addition of new village panchayat was opposed-Held, the petition is dismissed, rule is discharged and interim order are vacated.

       Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Sections 6 and 3-Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 4-An industrial unit-Developed by Village Panchayat-Inclusion of that area by adjoining Municipal Council in its own area-Alteration of boundaries-Government Notification-Held that notification was properly published.-According to the petitioners, villagers of Bamni allowed their lands to be acquired for industrialization of the area. However, Kalmeshwar Municipal Council, which has been in existence for over 100 years, moved the Government of include the areas in the Municipal limits in order to boost its revenues. Respondent No.1 Government published a notification on 5.6.1987 in a local vernacular daily indicating the intention to include lands in Bamni Village in Kalmeshwar Municipal Council and called for objections, if any. The notification also referred to an earlier publication in 1979 in a vernacular daily, not locally published, as also its display within the Municipal limits. This earlier notification was not noticed by the petitioners. However, on 9.3.1980, the Block Development Officer had apprised the Gram Panchayat of Government’s intention and had asked the Gram Panchayat to call a meeting to approve, or communicate objections to, this proposal and to forward the same to be Block Development Officer by 8.4.1980. According, on 7.4.1980, the Gram Panchayat resolved to oppose the proposal for reasons stated in the resolution and informed the Block Development Officer accordingly on 8.4.1980. This was reiterated by a resolution in a meeting dated 20.4.1980.

       Section 4(2) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act prescribes consulting the Gram Panchayat. However, it does not elaborate the procedure for consultation. Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act on the other hand refers to procedure prescribed in Section 3 of the said Act which requires that before notifying a change the State Government shall publish (i) a notification in Official Gazette, (ii) in a newspaper circulating in the area and (iii) by pasting copies in conspicuous areas prolonging its intentions.

       In this case the intention of the State was made known first by a notification published in Official Gazette on 3.11.1979. It has also been stated that the notification was also published in a Marathi daily "Loksatta". The Advocate for the petitioner contended that publication of notification in daily "Loksatta" was not adequate compliance to requirements of law since the said daily, at the relevant time, was not published from Nagpur. In Court’s view place of publication cannot be the critical criterion. The question would be whether the daily had circulation in the area to be affected. Petitioner has placed no material to conclude that daily Loksatta was not having circulation in Nagpur District. As for display within the area proposed to be declared as Municipal area, suffice it to say that since the areas were all agricultural lands acquired for the purpose of textile mill, display in Kalmeshwar town should be held adequate compliance.

       The question whether persons affected had notice of intentions of the Government is not left to speculation by petitioners themselves pointing to the correspondence after the first publication of notification in 1979 and before the second publication in 5.6.1987.

       The Block Development Officer/Tahsildar had also written vide communication dated 9.3.1980 to the petitioner Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting and to convey its decision by 8.4.1980. Accordingly on 7.4.1980 the petitioners resolved objecting to exclusion of the notified areas from its jurisdiction and their inclusion in Kalmeshwar Municipal Council. This was conveyed on 8.4.1980 to the authorities. Therefore, the objections of the petitioner, that publication of notification in 1979 in daily Loksatta was not adequate compliance has to be rejected as inconsequential since they had availed opportunity of objecting.