PANCHAYAT VARGA SHARMAJIVI SAMUDAIK SAHAKARI KHEDUT COOP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. versus HARIBHAI MEVABHAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 19-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PANCHAYAT VARGA SHARMAJIVI SAMUDAIK SAHAKARI 
A 
KHEDUT COOP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
HARIBHAI MEVABHAI AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND Q.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Gram Panchayat Act, 1961: Section 96(2)-Proviso and 96(4). 
Wasteland-Resumption of-Notice to villagers-Society consisting of C 
labourers and Scheduled caste persons-Request to gram panchayat for as-
signment of wasteland for the pwpose of cultivating and augmentation of 
econo111ic c111powennent of n1e111bers of Society-{]nani111ous Resolution 
passed by Gram Panchayat requesting the Collector to resume land and 
assign it to the Society-Collector resianing the land and assigning the san1e 
to the Society--Challenge to resumption order on the ground that District D 
Collector did not issue any notice. lo the villagers before resumption of 
lan~Held issuance of a notice to the villagers is not wa1r"anted by the sche111e 
of Section 96( 4 )-In passing the Resolution as a repre>·entative body the 
elected members represented the interest of Gram Panchayat effecting the 
constitutional goal-Consequently there lVGS no obligation to issue notice to E 
the villagers. 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14, 21, 39(6), 46. 
Socio Economic justice-Stale-Duty to protect interests of scheduled 
castes--Econon1ic e1n1Jowennent of the poor. 
F 
Madhu Kislnvar & 01~. v. State of Bihar & Ors., JT (1996) 4 SC 379; 
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. &Anr. v. U11i01i of India & Ors. Etc., JT [1996] 
4 SCC 555; Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors. v. Union of India 
& 01~., [1995] 3 SCC 42 and Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanalh 
Pandu Barde and Anr., JT (1995) 3 SC 563, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9888 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.94 of the Gujarat High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 33/94 in S.C. Application No. 6051 of 1986. 
H 
775 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ996j SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
R.P. Bhatt, Ms. N. Singh, Mrs. H. Wahi for the Appellants. 
Yashank A<lhyaru for J.M. Nanavati, Associates. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Leave granted. Though notice was served on the respondents - the 
first and the fourth respondent), the 1st respondent is not appearing either 
in person or through counsel; equally, 4th respondent through counsel. We 
have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as for the Stale. 
C 
The undisputed facts are that the appellant-Society consists of 
labourers and Scheduled Caste person belonging lo the village Khardosan 
in Decsa Taluka of Banaskantha District of Gujarat State. The appellant-
.society had requested the Gran1 Panchayat lo recommend t.o the Di.strict 
Collector for assignment of 300 acres of gaucher land (waste land) vested 
in the Ci-r<.nn Panchayat for the purpose of cultivation and augmentation of 
D economic empowerment of the members of the appellant-Society. The 
Gran1 Panchayat had unanimously i;esolvcd and requested the Collector to 
resume the land and assign it to the appellant. The District Collector in 
response thereto had resumed the land and assigned lhe same to the 
appellant. Calling the order of the District Collector in question a Review 
E Petition was filed before the Government by the first respondent. The 
Government by order dated August 20, 1986 set aside the order on the 
ground that District Collector did not issue any notice to the villagers 
before its resumption. When the writ petition came to be filed, while 
upholding that the waste land was required lo be resumed by the Collector 
for public purpose of assignment to the rural labourers belonging to 
F 
backward classes and Scheduled Caslcs, the High Court directed the 
Collector to give notice lo the villagers and to consider their objections and 
to pass order afresh thereafter. On appeal, by the impugned order dated 
January 24, 1994 in Appeal No. 33/94, the Division Bench confirmed the 
same. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
G 
1-1 
The question that arises for consideration is : whether notice to the 
villagers in mandatory under Section 96( 4) of the Gram Panchayat Act. 
1961 (for short, the 'Act') ? Section 96 reads as under : 
"96. Government may vest certain lands in Panchayats - (1) for lhe 
purpose of this Act, the State Government may subject lo such 
.. 
-" 
Pt\NC11A YATVARGASHARMAJ!VJ S.S. KHElJLTTCO.OP SUCY. LTD.1·. HAIUBHAI MEVABHAl 
777 
c~Jndilions and restrictions as it n1ay think fit to irnpo~c, vest in a A 
Pancln1.yat open sites \Vastc, vac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.