Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Sukhchain and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016 (Jabalpur); Decided on 20.9.2017.
Aseem Trivedi for petitioners;
Ankit Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondent/State;
S.P. Singh for respondent No.6.
Headnote:¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 172] fuŒ 7 & tyk'k; & tu lkèkkj.k }kjk fuLrkj vkfn ds iz;kstu ds fy, iz;qDr & xzke lHkk }kjk O;iofrZr ;k nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k ds fy, vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ogh dsoy Ñf"k iz;kstuksa ds fy, mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk O;iofrZr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 2] 17 ,oa 18½
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & dk fu;e & fuoZpu ikB vkSj lanHkZ ij vk/kkfjr gksuk pkfg, & nksuksa esa ls fdlh dh mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh & nksuksa egRoiw.kZ gSa & lcls vPNk fuoZpu og gS tks ewyikB & fo"k;d dk fuoZpu dks izklkafxd ds vuqdwy cukrk gSA ¼iSjk 19½
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 5&d rFkk 7¼1½¼¥&2½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 21] 47] 48d] 51d¼N½ rFkk 343d & tyk'k; ;k iks[kj & dk izca/k & iwokZo/kkuh fl)kar & tyk'k; dh esa< ij nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k ds fy, vkcaVu ds laca/k esa xzke lHkk dk ladYi & ,slk ladYi lkafo/kkfud Ldhe] yksdnkf;Ro ds fl)kar vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh n`f"V ls voS/k gS & xzke lHkk tyk'k; dh esa< ij fuekZ.k djus dk dksbZ fu.kZ; ;k ladYi ikfjr ugha dj ldrh & xzke lHkk dks mUeqDr 'kfDr;k¡ ugha gS & xzke lHkk }kjk ikfjr ,slk ladYi fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 2] 19] 20] 25] 27 ,oa 29½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 21] 47] 48d] 51d¼N½ rFkk 343d & eŒizŒ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 5&d rFkk 7¼1½¼¥&2½ & tyk'k; ;k iks[kj & dk izca/k & iwokZo/kkuh fl)kar & tyk'k; dh esa< ij nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k ds fy, vkcaVu ds laca/k esa xzke lHkk dk ladYi & ,slk ladYi lkafo/kkfud Ldhe] yksdnkf;Ro ds fl)kar vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh n`f"V ls voS/k gS & xzke lHkk tyk'k; dh esa< ij fuekZ.k dus dk dksbZ fu.kZ; ;k ladYi ikfjr ugha dj ldrh & xzke lHkk dks mUeqDr 'kfDr;k¡ ugha gSa & xzke lHkk }kjk ikfjr ,slk ladYi fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrkA 2011 jk fu 208 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½] ¼1987½ 1 ,l lh lh 424] ¼1977½ 2 ,l lh lh 256] ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 489] ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 496] ¼2011½ 11 ,l lh lh 396] 2005 ¼4½ lh Vh lh 1 enzkl] ¼2006½ 1 ,l lh lh 1] 2005 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu enzkl 438] ¼1997½ 3 ,l lh lh 715] 2015 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu mÙkj izns'k 1829] 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu iatkc ,oa gfj;k.kk 10564 rFkk 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu dydÙkk 1060 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 2] 19] 20] 25] 27 ,oa 29½
¼5½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 7¼1½¼t½ rFkk ¼¥&2½ & xzke lHkk dk ladYi & yksdnkf;Ro ds fl)kar ds izfrdwy & blds fo#) /kkjk 7¼1½¼t½ ds v/khu vihy dk mipkj miyH; & ,slk mipkj fjV ;kfpdk ds fy, dksbZ otZu ugha gSA 2008 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 617 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 30½
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 & eŒizŒ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 7¼1½¼t½ rFkk ¼¥&2½ & xzke lHkk dk ladYi & yksd nkf;Ro ds fl)kar ds izfrdwy & blds fo#) /kkjk 7¼1½¼t½ ds v/khu vihy dk mipkj miyH; & ,slk mipkj fjV ;kfpdk ds fy, dksbZ otZu ugha gSA ¼iSjk 30½
¼7½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 248 & eŒizŒ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 7¼1½¼t½ rFkk ¼¥&2½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kØe.k gVkus ds fo"k; esa vf/kdkfjrk & tyk'k; dh esa< ij nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k ds fy, vkcaVu ds laca/k esa xzke lHkk dk ladYi & blds fo#) yksdfgr eqdnek ds :i esa fjV ;kfpdk & dyDVj dks leqfpr dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dk funs'k fn;k x;k & mPp U;k;ky; ds ,sls funs'k ij & dyDVj }kjk vf/kØe.k gVkus dk funs'k fn;k x;k & ,slk funs'k vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ugha gSA ¼iSjk 30 ls 33½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.172, R.7 -- water body -- used for purpose of Nistar etc. by general public -- cannot be diverted or permitted for construction of shop by Gram Sabha -- same can be directed only for purposes of agriculture by Sub-Divisional Officer. [Paras 2, 17 & 18
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- rule of -- interpretation must be based on taxt and context -- neither can be ignored -- both are important -- best interpretation is which makes textual interpretation match the contextual. [Para 19
(3) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss.5-A and 7(1)(j-ii) -- Constitution of India -- Arts.21, 47, 48A, 51A(g) and 343A -- water body or pond -- management of -- precautionary principles -- resolution of Gram Sabha regarding allotment for construction of shops on periphery of water body -- such resolution is illegal in view of constitutional scheme, public trust doctrine and object of section 7 of Adhiniyam -- Gram Sabha cannot take any decision or pass resolution to raise construction on periphery of water body -- Gram Sabha has no unfettered powers -- such resolution passed by Gram Sabha cannot be sustained. [Paras 2, 19, 20, 25, 27 & 29
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts.21, 47, 48A, 51A(g) and 343A -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- Ss.5-A and 7(1)(j-ii) -- water body on pond -- management of -- precautionary principles -- resolution of Gram Sabha regarding allotment for construction of shops on periphery of water body -- such resolution is illegal in view of constitutional scheme, public trust doctrine and object of section 7 of Adhiniyam -- Gram Sabha cannot take any decision or pass resolution to raise construction on perephery of water body -- Gram Sabha has no unfettered powers -- such resolution cannot be sustained. 2011 RN 208 (HC), (1987)1 SCC 424, (1977)2 SCC 256, (2013)3 SCC 489, (2001)6 SCC 496, (2011)11 SCC 396, 2005(4) CTC1 Mad., (2006)1 SCC 1, 2005 SCC Online Mad. 438, (1997)3 SCC 715, 2015 SCC Online Utt. 1829, 2013 SCC Online P & H 10564 and 2013 SCC Online Cal.1060 referred to. [Paras 2, 19, 20, 25, 27 & 29
(5) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S.7(1)(h) and (j-ii) -- resolution of Gram Sabha -- contrary to public trust doctrine -- remedy of appeal against it is available under section 7(1)(h) -- such remedy is no any bar for writ petition. 2008(3) MPLJ 617 distinguished. [Para 30
(6) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S.7(1)(h) and (j-i) -- resolution of Gram Sabha -- contrary to public trust doctrine -- remedy of appeal against it under section 7(1)(h) available -- such remedy is no any bar for writ petition. [Para 30
(7) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.248 -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S.7(1)(h) and (j-ii) -- Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- jurisdiction about removal of encroachment -- resolution of Gram Sabha regarding allotment for construction of shops on periphery of water body -- writ petition as PIL against it -- direction given to Collector for taking appropriate action -- on such direction of High Court -- for removing encroachment direction given by Collector -- such direction given by Collector is not without jurisdiction. [Paras 30 to 33
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Collector (respondent No.2) dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure P-14) whereby the Collector directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment and disapproved the decision of Gram Sabha to construct the shops on the water body of village Bhajiya, Tahsil Badwara, District Katni.
2. Briefly stated, the facts narrated by the petitioners are that the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Bhajiya passed a unanimous resolution on 14.4.2013 (Annexure P-2) to permit the construction of shops at the water body is situated within the territory of Gram Panchayat. This decision was taken in order to ensure that the water body is properly protected, and no further soil erosion takes place. The decision was taken with a view to generate employment also.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that said decision of Gram Panchayat was taken in consonance with Article 243A of the Constitution read with section-7(1)(j-ii) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short 'Adhiniyam'). By taking this Court to the said provision, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 'Gram Sabha' which is a body corporate as per section 5A of the Adhiniyam was competent to take decision to construct shops within the area of village in accordance with provision of the Constitution.
4. Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken pains to contend that certain villagers were not happy with the decision taken by the Gram Sabha and they preferred complaints before the Tahsildar. It is urged that if anybody is aggrieved by the decision of Gram Sabha, the said decision can be called in question by preferring appeal as per section 7h of the Adhiniyam. The said persons preferred complaint/appeal before incompetent Authority i.e Tahsildar and the Tahsildar erroneously entertained the said complaint. He relied on 2008(3) MPLJ 617 [Prathmik Om Sai Gramin Mahila Bahuddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baihar and others]. Shri Trivedi contended that Tahsildar without affording opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners to whom shops were already allotted, passed the order dated 13.12.2014 (Annexure P-7). It is submitted that the said order is bad in law in view of the demarcation report dated 8.7.2015 (Annexure P-13). It is argued that as per the demarcation report (Annexure P-13), the construction of shops were made on the boundary of the water body and, therefore, no fault can be found in the action of the Gram Sabha.
5. Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although in a Public Interest Litigation filed by respondent No.6 (Writ Petition No.3094/2015) this Court directed on 12.3.2015 that the Collector must examine the grievance of the petitioners and proceed in accordance with law, such direction, by no stretch of imagination, can bestow jurisdiction to the Collector which he otherwise does not have. Putting it differently, Shri Trivedi contended that neither order passed in Writ Petition No.3094/2015 nor order passed in Review Petition No.373/2015 can be read to give jurisdiction to the Collector by a judicial order. This Court while deciding the Review Petition No.373/2015 made it clear that the Collector has to take the decision 'in accordance with law'. Thus, in absence of any enabling provision, the Collector had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to pass the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of insertion of Article 243A in the Constitution, the Gram Panchayat must be treated as a small republic. Reliance is placed on (2015)10 SCC 400 [Rajendra Shankar Shukla and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others]. By taking assistance from 73rd and 74th amendment of the Constitution, it is contended that full autonomy was given to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the purpose of taking care of the natural resources, land and other t
