Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 1737
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
Vengaivasal Village Panchayat by its President - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu & Others - Respondents
W.A.No.977 of 1998
Decided On : 22 December 2004
Headnote:
Government Order - Village Panchayat's Vested Right - Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1944, Section 125(1), Section 125(2) - The court discussed the definition of 'public road' under Section 2(28) of the Act, the vesting right of the Panchayat under Section 125(1), and the power of the Government to exclude public roads from the Act under Section 125(2). The court emphasized the protection of the vested rights of the Village Panchayat and the violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure for reclassification. The court also highlighted the importance of the Panchayat Raj system and the powers and authority of the Panchayats as institutions of self-government under Article 243G of the Constitution of India. The court held that the impugned Government Order was passed ignoring the statutory provisions and set it aside.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Village Panchayat, challenged the reclassification of a public road by the Government through a Government Order (G.O.) without obtaining the Panchayat's consent as required under the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1944.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Government's action in passing the impugned Government Order without obtaining the Panchayat's consent violated the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the vested rights of the Village Panchayat and the Panchayat Raj system.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Government's action in reclassifying the public road without obtaining the Panchayat's consent was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government's action violated the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the protection of the vested rights of the Village Panchayat and the importance of the Panchayat Raj system.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned Government Order as well as the consequential proceedings were quashed. The Government was advised to consider allotting equal extent of land to deserving allottees from any alternate site.
P.D.Dinakaran,J.
The core question of law that arises in the above appeal, as projected by Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is "whether the action of the Government, first respondent, in passing the impugned government order, viz., G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997, by exercising the power conferred under Board Standing Order 21, reclassifying the public road, which power vests with the appellant/village panchayat (local body) whose vested right, power and jurisdiction are well defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1944, ignoring the concept of Panchayat Raj enabling them to function as institutions of self-government under Article 243G of the Constitution of India, is valid?"
2. The appellant in the appeal is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18208 of 1997 filed for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997, quash the same and to forbear the respondents from reclassifying the property in Survey Nos.237 and 238 of Vengaivasal Village from Vandi-patti (cart-track) Poromboke to Natham Poromboke and assigning it to Raj Bhavan last grade servants.
3. Concededly, the appellant/Village Panchayat is discharging its rights and duties defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") through the body elected under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules farmed thereunder.
4. The character of the impugned land located in Survey Nos.237 and 238 of Vengaivasal Village is classified as Vandi-pattai poromboke (Cart-track), a road within the meaning of the "public road" defined under Section 2(28) of the Act, and it is not in dispute that the same vests with the appellant/Village panchayat as per Section 125(1) of the Act.
5. On a representation made by the last grade employees of the Raj Bhavan, the Government/first respondent, by G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997, which is impugned in the writ petition, proposed to reclassify the property in Survey Nos.237 and 238 of Vengaivasal Village from Vandi-patti Poromboke (cart-track) to Natham Poromboke, and to assign the same to the last grade servants of the Raj Bhavan without any consent of the appellant/Village Panchayat by way of appropriate resolution, under the pretext that the appellant/Village Panchayat had not responded to the request of the Collector made in his letter dated 17.2.19897 requiring the appellant/ Village Panchayat to pass necessary resolution to reclassify the impugned land for the purpose of assigning the same to the last grade employees of the Raj Bhavan.
6. Based on the strength of the impugned G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997, the Commissioner/fourth respondent, in his letter dated 12.3.1997 required the appellant/Village Panchayat to pass appropriate resolution for reclassifying the Vandi-patti Poromboke (cart-track) to Natham Poromboke. Hence, the above writ petition.
7. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, neither the Government nor the Collector filed any counter affidavit.
8. However, the learned Single Judge in the order dated 4.12.1997 made in W.P.No.18208 of 1997, interpreting Section 125(2) of the Act, came to the conclusion that what is required under Section 125(2) of the Act is only consultation with the panchayat, but not their consent, and held that the right of the Panchayat is not affected in any manner by the impugned G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997 and therefore, refused to interfere with the impugned G.O.(Grade) No.239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997 and dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or violation of the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by that the writ petitioner has filed the above appeal.
9. Till the above appeal was taken up for final hearing on 13.12.2004, the respondents have not chosen to file any co
