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

1965 Supreme(Raj) 72

D.M.BHANDARI, B.P.BERI
Pukhraj – Appellant
Versus
Ummaidram – Respondent


Advocates:
Appearance :
G.M. Lodha, for the Appellant
Makhtoormal, for the Respondents

Judgment Bhandari, J.-This case has been referred by a Single Judge of this Court to a larger Bench as there is a divergence of Judicial opinion in this Court on the point whether a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat is or is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government.

2. Thecomplainant Pukhraj had filed a complaint against Ummaidram and six others alleging that they had

demolished the chabutri and the latrine over it on 12th of February 1958 between 9 and 10 A.M. and that the

chabutri was on the land belonging to the complainant and the demolition of the chabutri and latrine had

caused to the complainant the loss of Rs. 3 00/-. The complaint was for prosecuting the accused under

Sections 451,. 427 and 147, IPC. Ummaidram accused, took the plea that he was acting as Sarpanch of the

Gram Panchayat, Bilara, and he had directed the removal of the encroachment in that capacity in good faith.

The trial magistrate discharged the accused. In his opinion no prima facie case was made out as Ummaidram

acting as Sarpanch was discharging his duty as Sarpanch in widening the street. The learned magistrate

further held that in view of Section 79 of the Rajasthan Pan












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

No cases in the provided list are identified as overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The case law listed discusses the application of Article 311 of the Constitution but does not include any indications of subsequent judicial treatment that would classify it as overruled or invalid.

[Followed]

None: The list does not specify that this case has been followed by subsequent decisions.

[Distinguished]

None: There is no mention of the case being distinguished in later rulings.

[Criticized or Questioned]

None: The case law does not contain language indicating criticism or questioning by later courts.

[Legal Treatment]

The case appears to be a foundational or interpretative decision regarding the scope of Article 311, but without further context or subsequent treatment, it remains a standalone reference.

None: The treatment of the case law is clear and unambiguous based on the provided information. There are no indications of uncertainty or ambiguous judicial treatment.

**Source :** Satish Chandra Anand VS Union Of India - Supreme Court PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS UNION OF INDIA - Madhya Pradesh Bhagwatilal VS Bhanwarlal - Rajasthan

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top