Collective decisions taken by a Panchayat body cannot be characterized as individual misconduct or abuse of position by an official, rendering proceedings initiated under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, prima facie without jurisdiction.

ORAL ORDER

[1] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court by calling in question the legality and the validity of the order dated 27th March 2026 passed by the respondent No.1 – District Development Officer, Mahesana. By the said order, the District Development Officer, Mahesana has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner against continuation of proceedings under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”).

[2] At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the very petitioner had approached this Court by way of R/Special Civil Application No.410 of 2026 challenging the legality and the validity of notice dated 1st January 2026 issued under Section 57 of the Act. This Court, however, vide order dated 16th January 2026, directed the petitioner to raise the issue of jurisdiction by way of preliminary objection before the District Development Officer, Mahesana. This Court also directed the authority to decide the said preliminary objection by way of separate reasoned order.

[3] Accordingly, the petitioner has raised preliminary objection by way of objection dated 23rd January 2026 mainly on the ground that there cannot be any action under Section 57 of the Act against the petitioner for removal of encroachment that was done by way of collective decision of body.

[4] The District Development Officer, Mahesana, however, vide impugned order dated 27th March 2026, appears to have not dealt with the said contentions categorically. Upon further perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the District Development Officer, Mahesana has proceeded to decide the preliminary objection as per the pre-determination motion and without dealing with the submissions on jurisdiction in particular.

[5] In addition to the aforesaid, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Udaysinh Shankarsinh Zala vs. Shri S. D. Vadera or his successor-in-office, Additional District Development Commissioner and others reported in 1995 (2) GLH 323, has made the observations in para 3, which reads as under:

“3. Admittedly, the Panchayat had passed resolutions imposing the levy of toll on animals carrying burden. A copy of the resolution dated 29th March, 1990 which is at Annexure "C" shows that earlier it was resolved to charge toll at the rate of Rs. 2/- and objections were invited against that proposal from the public. On 24th May, 1990, the District Development Officer by letter at Annexure "D" to the petition had written to the Panchayat that there was no provision in Section 178 of the said Act for imposing tax on vehicles passing through the Panchayat area but the Panchayat could within the limits of Rule 144 decide to impose taxes according to the Schedule, at the "Toll Naka". On 28th May, 1990 the Panchayat by its resolution No. 20(1) resolved under the provisions of Rule 144 of the said Rules proposing levy of toll at the rate of 30 paise per day which rate is prescribed in the Schedule to the said Rules. The Panchayat resolved to call for objections against the proposed levy. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 18th June, 1990 in a local daily "Jansatta", a copy of which is at Annexure "F" to the petition. Thereafter, on 20th September, 1990 the Panchayat passed a resolution No. 44 finally imposing toll from 1-10-1990 on each loaded or unloaded vehicle drawn by two or more animals at the rate of 30 paise per day which is the prescribed maximum under the Schedule, prescribed under Rule 144 of the said Rules, By the same resolution the Panchayat authorised the Sarpanch to give a private contract for collection of octroi fixing the upset price at Rs. 21,600/- by referring to the provisions of Section 180 of the said Act under which it could give such contract. The provisions of Section 178(1)(v-a) clearly empower a Gram Panchayat to levy a toll on vehicles and animals used for riding, draught or burden entering the Gram