Wanchoo C.J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Consitu-tion by Misrimal against the Gram Panchayat, Siwana.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to oppose this application.

3. The facts of this case may be briefly mentioned. The applicant is a resident of village, Siwana, where there is a Gram Panchayat. The applicant purchased a dilapidated shop inside the main gate of Siwana from certain persons by a registered sale-deed dated the 16th of July, 1953. These persons are said to have handed over the Patta of the land, on which this shop stands, to the applicant and the applicant thereafter applied to the Tehsildar, Siwana, for grant of Patta to him. Proceedings in that connection are said to be pending before the Tehsildar.

4. Soon after this purchase became known, certain mohallawalas complained to the Gram Panchayat, Siwana, that the land, over which the dilapidated shop stood, should not be allowed to be built upon and proceedings should be taken to restrain the applicant from obtaining Patta of this land. The reason for this was that if any construction was made on this land, the public way would become narrow and there would be inconvenience to the public. There upon a notice was issued to the applicant by the Panchayat on the 29th of September, 1953, and he was told that the land of the shop abutted on the public way (is dukan kee zamin aam raste par aai hui hai) and, therefor, nobody could be allowed to build on it. In reply to this notice, the applicant appeared before the Panchayat and objected that the land was not a public way and that he had purchased it from its rightful owners and had applied for Patta to the Tehsildar and that the Panchayat should not interfere in the matter. There-upon the Panchayat passed an order on the 24th of August, 1954. In this order the Panchayat says that the place has been inspected and the inspection shows that if the land is given on Patta to a private person, the way would become narrow and the public would suffer. Consequently, the Panchayat decided to recommend to the Tehsildar that no Patta should be granted of this land.

5. It may be noticed that in this order the Panchayat did not say that the land was part of the public way; nor did it pass any order prohibiting the applicant from proceeding with the Patta proceedings. All that was decided was to recommend to the Tehsildar, who was dealing with the Patta proceedings, not to grant a Patta to the applicant, as possession of a private person on this piece of land would result in narrowing the public way and causing inconvenience to the public generally. It may be mentioned that this piece of land has been lying vacant and that is why the Panchayat said that if anything is built upon it, the public way would become narrow, assuming that this piece of land had become a public way.

6. Nothing seems to have happened for about a year. But in September, 1955, the matter was again taken up by the Panchayat and an order was passed on the 11th of September, 1955, asking the applicant to remove the materials which he was collecting on this spot of land within a period of seven days, failing which action would be taken against him, as provided by law. It seems that the applicant in this period started collecting some materials. That is why the Panchayat took this action An order was passed on the 11th of September, 1955, by the Panchayat in this connection. This order purports to be based on the earlier order based on the notice dated 29th of September, 1953, which we have already mentioned; but in fact, it goes far beyond that order. Nothing was said in the earlier order that the land was part of the public way. All that the earlier order did was to make a recommendation to the Tehsildar not to grant a Patta. The Panchayat, by its earlier order, decided nothing one way or the other, but in the order dated 11th of September, 1955, the Panchayat said that the earlier order was to the effect that the land was part of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document