VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, CALANGUTE versus THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT-II AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 02-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 277 
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, CALANGUTE 
v. 
THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT-11 AND 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2012) 
JULY 02, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - ss. 3, 64 and 8 -
C 
Establishment of village Panchayat u/s. 3 - Order passed by 
the designated officer-Additional Director of Panchayat 
exercising the power of an appellate authority qua the action/ 
decision/resolution of the Village Panchayat - Locus of 
Village Panchayat to file a petition under Article 226 and/or 
D 
227 for setting aside the. order passed by Additional Director 
of Panchayat - On appfial, held: Village Panchayat has the 
locus to challenge the orders passed by Additional Director 
of Panchayat - On facts, local residents had complained 
against the illegal construction of blocking access to water well 
E 
and the chapel by a Cpompany and the Village Panchayat 
passed separate resolutions for revocation of occupancy 
certificate and permission for construction -
Thereafter, 
Sarpanch issued notices to the Company and directed it to 
stop the further construction - However, the Additional Director F 
of Panchayat instead of suspending the execution of the 
resolutions passed by the Village Panchayat or the notice 
issued by the Sarpanch and sending the matter to the State 
Government for confirmation, suo-moto annulled the 
resolutions and the notice by assuming that he had the power G 
to do so -
Thus, while the village Panchayat and the 
Sarpanch had exercised their respective powers in public 
interest, Additional Director of Panchayat nullified that 
exercise because he felt that the resolution/action was contrary· 
277 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A to law and was unjustified - While exercising the power under 
the Act, the Panchayat was not acting as a subordinate to 
Additional Director of Panchayat but as a body representing 
the will of the people and also a body corporate in terms of 
s. 8 - High Court erred in holding that the writ petition filed by 
B the Village Panchayat challenging the order passed by 
Additional Director of Panchayat was not maintainable -
Order passed by the High Court set aside - Writ petitions filed 
by the Village Panchayat being maintainable, restored to their 
c 
original numbers. 
Panchayat - Functions and responsibilities of village 
panchayat - Explained. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals was whether a Village Panchayat 
D established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat ~aj 
Act, 1994 or any other statutory dispensation existing 
· prior to the enactment of the Act has the locus to file a 
petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution 
for setting aside an order passed by the designated 
E officer exercising the power of an appellate authority qua 
the action/decision/resolution of the Village Panchayat. 
Appellant-Village Panchayat granted permission to a 
Company for raising construction on property. It is 
F alleged that the company made illegal construction 
whereby it blocked the access to the water well and the 
chapel. The local residents made a complaint. The 
appellant passed resolution for revocation of the 
occupancy certificate. By another resolution the 
permission granted 
~o the company for raising 
G construction was revoked. Aggrieved, the appellant filed 
Panchayat Petition and the resolution canceling the 
permission was recalled since the rules of natural justice · 
was not followed. Thereafter, the Sarpanch issued notice 
under Section 64 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and 
H 
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, CALANGUTE v. ADDITIONAL 279. 
DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT-11 
directed the company to stop further construction. The 
A 
Company challenged the notice in Panchayat Appeal and 
respondent No.1-the Additional Director of Panchayat 
passed an ex-parte interim order. Meanwhile, the 
Company filed an application for grant of permission to 
use the property for running a guest house and the 
appellant rejected the same. The Company challenged 
8 
the decision of the Gram Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal. 
Some residents also filed a complaint before Block 
Development Officer against the illegal construction 
raised by the company. The Block Development Officer c 
dismissed the complaint holding that the construction 
made by the company was not illegal and any restriction 
on the use of property would seriously prejudice its 
cause. The appellant

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