The Gram Panchayat's jurisdiction and authority to partition land and impose penalties for disobedience were examined, and the court found that the orders were passed without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice.

Kamlesh Sharma J.-. In this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 4.7.1998, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Barsar, exercising the powers of the Collector, Sub Division Barsar, District Hamirpur, whereby their appeal was dismissed and the order dated 19.7.1997 of Gram Panchayat Jamli, Development block, Bijhari, Teshil Barsar, District Hamirpur, was upheld. By its order dated 19.7.1997, the Gram Panchayat, Jamli, had held the Petitioners guilty of disobedience of its earlier order and imposed upon each of them a fine of Rs. 25/- and ordered them to deposit the same with the Panchayat immediately. It was further ordered that the petitioners in accordance with the earlier decision of the Panchayat will fix the boundary and remove the stones lying on the land of Smt. Saroj Kumah wife of Ramesh Chand within a period of one month, failing which penalty of Rs. 1/- per day subject to maximum of Rs. 500/- will be imposed upon them. The earlier order of the Gram Panchayat is dated 4.6.1997.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is son and petitioner No. 2 wife of petitioner No.1, is the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 3, whereas respondent No. 1 is his widowed daughter-in-law. In 19.1.1997, respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Gram Panchayat requesting that the land adjacent to his house (on the front as well as on the back) may be partitioned between his daughter-in-law Smt. Saroj Kumari and his son Parkash Chand in equal share in order to avoid dispute between them. It was admitted in the application that about 8-9 years ago, a family settlement of abadi land had taken place, but the vacant land around the house could not be partitioned. It was further stated that in view of the requirement of land by Saroj Kumari to construct a cow-shed, the land adjacent to her house may be partitioned between her and Parkash Chand.

3. From the record it appears that in pursuance to the application of respondent No. 3 Panchayat Pardhan, up Pardhan and Ward Members visited the spot on 4.6.1997 in the presence of respondent No. 1 and 3 and others and fixed the boundary in the compound as well as on the back portion of the house of Smt. Saroj Kumari to the extent of 16.6 feet by putting stones and 3 marlas of land of the compound of Smt. Saroj Kumari was also given to her Further 3 feet wide path in the compound of Smt. Saroj Kumari leading to govt. forest, was demarcated by putting stones for the use of Parkash Chand. Smt. Saroj Kumari was directed to cut trees planted by her on the said path within a period of one week and Parkash Chand was directed to remove the stones and wood kept by him on the land of Smt. Saroj Kumari within a period of 7 days. These directions of the Panchayat were written down in its order dated 4.6.1997, which was read over to the persons present on the spot. It was also explained that those who will disobey the said order, will be brought to book in accordance with law. This order is not signed by Parkash Chand and his wife Simro Devi, the petitioners before this Court, which shows that they were not present on the spot.

4. Again, on 20.6.1997 respondent No. 3 filed another application complaining that the petitioners had not removed the stones and the wood from the piece of land given to Smt. Saroj Kumari within a period of 7 days as directed by the panchayat but had pulled off stones affixed for the demarcation of the land. In his application, respondent No. 3 further requested the panchayat to visit the spot again and repartition the land by giving land falling on the back of the house of Smt. Saroj Kumari to her and the land falling on the back of the house of Parkash Chand, to him. Accepting the request of respondent No. 3 the panchayat again visited the spot on 2.7.1997 and after noticing that its order dated 4.6.1997 was not obeyed by the petitioners, gave notice to them to show cause on or before 19.7.19