SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Guj) 204

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.K.Abichandani
LALADHAR PRAGJI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 3826 of 1984
Decided On : 04/04/1995

Advocates Appeared: NANDLAL THAKKAR, P.V.Hathi, S.K.MANDAVIA

Headnote:Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 - Secs. 317 (1), 178 (1) and 297 - Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 - Order passed against petitioners, the former Sarpanch and Upsarpanch for recovery of loss allegedly caused due to their failure to impose house tax - Held, improper and unwarranted - Inaction or failure was of the panchayat as a whole and not of individual member - Proper action lies under sec. 297 - No loss caused as the tax did not become due - Impugned order has no justification, therefore, quashed.

       From failure of duty by a Gram Panchayat due to its not levying tax on buildings and lands under Section 178 (1A) of the said Act which may entail action against the Panchayat. It will be a far fetched conclusion to hold that any loss has been caused of money or other property of the Panchayat as a direct consequence of any misconduct or gross negligence on the part of a member of such Panchayat. Imposing liability on individual members under sub-section (2) of Section 317 in cases where Panchayat as a whole is guilty of inaction may lead to consequences not intended by the provisions of the said Act qua such members. The Panchayat collectively takes decisions for discharge of its duties and its failure to discharge the duty cannot be attributed to a single member. The privisions of Section 317 have no application to a case where there is no question of a member being a party to a loss, waste or misapplication of money or other property of a Panchayat which is a direct consequence of any misconduct or gross negligence on his part and the question is only of failure of duty cast upon Panchayat. The proper course in such cases would be to take action against the Panchayat as contemplated by Section 297 of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order fixing the liability of the petitioners for the inaction of the Panchayat as a whole was uncalled for and deserve to be set aside.

       [Para 6]

       Practice and Procedure - Judicial restrain - Trial court while deciding the case of levy of house tax from retrospective dates, passed comments against former Sarpanch and Upsarpanch - Same resulted into recovery order of tax loss - Held, unwarranted - Trial court was not required to pass any comments.

       It is not the function of the subordinate Courts to generate such new proceedings which do not emanate from the case and controversy which the subordinate Court is required to deal with. The duty of the Court is to decide the case and controversy before it and not to issue correctional fiats in the matters which do not arise in its proceedings. Therefore, the subordinate Courts will be well advised not to delve in the fields which do not concern them, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the case and controversy arising therein before them.

       [Para 7]

R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who were the members of Malia gram Panchayat from 1968-73 have challenged the order of the learned District judge, Junagadh dated 17-2-1984 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1983 and the order of the Mamlatdar, Malia-Hatina dated 11-1-1983 holding the petitioners liable for loss of tax on buildings and lands for the period from 1- 4-1971 upto 30/04/1973 under Sec. 317 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were elected as members of the said Panchayat in 1968, the term of which came to an end on 31/04/1973. The petitioner No. 2 was elected as Sarpanch and the petitioner No. 1 as Upa-Sarpanch. A Gram Panchayat is empowered to levy the taxes and fees at such rates as may be decided by it and in such manner and subject to exemptions as may be prescribed, under Sec. 178 (1) of the said Act, subject to any general or special order of the State Government. Under clause (i) of Sec. 178 (1), a Gram Panchayat can levy a tax on buildings and lands. By Amendment Act 1 of 1968, sub-sec. (1a) was added to Sec. 178 whereunder it was provided that it shall be compulsory for a Gram Panchayat to levy a tax on buildings and lands referred to in clause (ii) of sub-sec. (1) and at least any two of the other taxes or fees referred to in that sub-section after the expiry of a period of two years from 1/04/1968. Accordingly, from 1/04/1970 it became compulsory for a Gram Panchayat to levy a tax on buildings and lands besides any other two items from Sec. 178 (1 ). However, it was only on 3/07/1973 that resolution No. 28 was passed by the said Panchayat deciding to impose such tax from 1/01/1974. Before the formalities could be completed and the tax finally imposed, the term of the Panchayat came to an end on 31/12/1973 when the petitioners ceased to be the members of the Panchayat. The newly elected Body of the said Panchayat, to which none of the petitioners were members, continued the work of assessment. In the meantime, the District Development Officer, junagadh by his order dated 14-1-1975 directed the Gram Panchayat to impose and collect tax from 1/04/1970 and in default of such levy, he recommended to supersede the Gram Panchayat under Sec. 297 of the Act. Therefore, the new elected Body of the Panchayat imposed the tax retrospectively from 1/04/1970 on lands and buildings. The inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat feeling aggrieved by the levy with retrospective effect, filed Civil Suit No. 231 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D. ). In the said suit, the petitioners were co-plaintiff. The suit was decreed on 20/10/1976 and the house tax as imposed by the Panchayat retrospectively was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The trial Court found that it was decided on 5/02/1975 to levy the said tax from 1/04/1970 instead of 1/04/1974 but there was nothing to show that objections were invited before deciding to levy taxed from 1/04/1970. This was considered to be a material defect. The Court held that the Panchayat had failed to observe the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964. As provided by Rule 4, the tax or fee could be levied from the date specified in the notice which shall not be earlier than one month after the date of the publication of the notice. Accordingly, the house tax imposed by the Panchayat was declared as null and void. In the process of that decision, the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) made certain observations against some of the plaintiffs, i. e. , the petitioners herein, who were former members of the Panchayat. The trial Judge had observed that in his opinion there was gross misconduct on the part of the Sarpanch and the members of the Panchayat to perform the duties of the Panchayat and that the mandatory requirement of Sec. 178 (1a) of the said Act was violated by not imposing the house tax from 1-4-1970. The learned trial Judge lamented "reasons are best known to













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top