KARMALL SINGH AND ANR. versus DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 16-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KARMAlL SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952~ Sections 3(q), 4 and 5. 
State-Notification amalgamating two Gram Sabhas-Decision of 
amalgamation taken with a view to preventing misuse of office by one 
Sarpanch-Decision held not arbitrary exercise of power by Government. 
In exercise of its power under Section 4 of the Punjab Gram 
Panchayat Act, 1952 the State of Haryana issued a Notification dated 
18.12.1991 amalgamating two Gram Sabhas namely Bhorakh and 
Harigarh Gram Sabhas. The State Government took the aforesaid 
decisions after taking into account the Report of Director of Panchayat 
that one Sarpanch has mismanaged and misused his ·office by illegally 
appropriating 86 acres and 2 kanals of land by obtaining fictitious and 
collusive decrees in the name of his supporters. The second respondent 
challenged the validity of the Notification before the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court. A Single Judge quashed it on the ground that 
misuse of office by a Sarpanch could be prevented by other alternative 
correctional methods; the two existing gram sabhas which were 
functioning smoothly on democratic basis could not be amalgamated o~ 
account of misuse by one Sarpanch. The Division Bench also dismissed 
the appeal in Iimine. 
In appeal to this Court, on the question whether the High Court 
was right in its conclusion that the action of Government was vitiated 
by arbitrary exercise of power, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that ·under Section 4(1) read with section 3(q) of the Act, for 
constitution of a gram sabha area, the village must be a revenue estate 
as defined under section 3(q); Harigarh was not a revenue estate while 
Bhorakh is a revenue estate. There cannot be two gram sabhas in one 
revenue estate. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The decision taken by the state Govt. cannot be said to 
be irrelevant, arbitrary and unwarranted on the facts of the case. 
H 
[705 F] 
700 
I 
' 
KARMAIL SINGH v. DARSHAN SINGH 
701 
2. It is an executive policy decision taken by the Government to A 
create separate Panchayats or to amalgamate the existing gram sabhas. 
It would not be for the courts to evaluate and decide whether the 
existence of the two gram sabhas should be continued or further 
bifurcated or amalgamated. [706 CJ 
3. But the Government should have material and should consider B 
the material before it takes the decision. In the absence of any material, 
it can be said that it is an arbitrary decision taken by the Government. 
But when there is some material before the authority or the 
Government and the same was considered though two views may be 
possible to be taken on the same material, it must be left to the Govt. to 
take a decision which unless it is vitiated by mala tides, the court C 
cannot substitute its view to that of the Government in constituting two 
separate gram panchayats situated in the revenue estate or two 
contiguous villages with a population of not less than five hundred. 
[705 H, 706 A] 
4. In this case, the Government appears to have thought that D 
misuse or abuse of the power by a Sarpanch should be prevented by 
amalgamating two panchayats. Other corrective measures though may 
be evolved, the action of the Government cannot be said to be 
unwarranted or illegal or invalid. Accordingly, the impugned orders 
are set aside and the notification date 18.12.1991 is upheld. 
(705 E, 706 F] E 
5. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 
1952 indicates that a gram sabha area with a population of not less 
than 500 may be constituted, by a notification, by the Government to 
be a gram panchayat and that village must be a revenue estate as 
defined in Section 3(q) . But in a village, which, in other words a F 
revenue estate, if population is more than 500, but needs one or more 
gram sabhas, there is no prohibition under section 4(1) for the 
Government to exercise the power declaring such a gram sabha area 
within the same revenue estate to be a Panchayat. For better or proper 
administration of the panchayat in the same revenue estate one or more 
gram sabha areas could be constituted by a notification declaring them G 
to be separate gram panchayats. Therefore, the words 'or a group of 
contiguous villages', in the second part of section 4(1) need not 
necessarily be construed to mean for amalgamation of two revenue 
estate

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.