Gaon Sabha Gram Panchayat Mauja ... vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9943 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9195 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Gaon Sabha Gram Panchayat Mauja Mugarsan Parganamah Tehsil Hadiya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Braj Lal,Subhash Chandra Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 passed by respondent No. 4 in Case No. 249 of 2002-2011 (Village Mugarsan Parganamah Tehsil Hadiya District Allahabad Ramjan Ali vs. Gaon Sabha) under Section 229-B U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.3.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 in Revision No. 61 of 2011-12 (Computerized No. AI201202039936) (Panna Lal Kesarwani and others vs. Ramjan Ali and others) under Section 229-B U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act Village Mugrasan Parganamah Tehsil Hadia District Allahabad.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and not to construct over the same and not to change the property in suit and preserved property in suit."

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, at the outset, raised objection with regard to maintainability of present writ petition on the ground of locus standi.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on paras 3-A and 12 to the writ petition to submit that petitioner has locus standi to file this writ petition. The said paras are reproduced as under:

"3-A. That, petitioner is the Pradhan in present resume and he has locus standi to file this petition to protect the right of Gaonsabha/ State property and he is aggrieved interested an effected person from the order passed by both the Courts below.

12. That member of the aforesaid villagers and penal lawyer with the collusion respondent no. 5 they have not protect the land in dispute of Gaon Sabha/ State property hence petitioner engaged private counsel to protect the land in dispute of the State property."

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Jaipur vs. Smt. Chhoti and others, 1990(16) ALR 155 which is in relation to Court's permission for a representative suit, and contended that to assert a right in the community property any member of the community may bring a suit for that and in such case compliance of requirement of Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. is not necessary. He further relied on a decision of this Court in Babu Lal vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, 1985 RD 236 to contend that Court can protect the interest of Gaon Sabha in case it has been found that land has actually vested in Gaon Sabha. Even a petition is filed by a person, who is neither a member of Land Management Committee nor he was Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on The Land Management Committee, Nainu Patti through the Pradhan Gaon Samaj Pargana and District Mathura vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1965 RD 349 and contended that in absence of any appointment of an Advocate for Land Management Committee, the Chairman of the Committee is a competent person to authorise under law to conduct a litigation for or against Gaon Sabha and he can also appointed an Advocate. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that in view of above authorities, petitioner has a right to file this writ petition challenging the impugned orders.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has opposed the above submission and relied on various judgments of this Court. The first being a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Pusawali Block-Junawal, Tehsil Gunnaur District Budaun vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64500 of 2006), decided on 12.12.2006 and the relevant observations of the Court are reproduced as under:

"In view of the above, we have no doubt that in absence of appropriate resolution to file the writ petition and permission of the concerned District Magistrate, as required under the provisions, Sri Sushil Kumar has no authority to represent the Gram Sabha."

7. The next judgment cited by learned Standing Counsel is Village Management Committee Gram Panchayat and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 6231 of 2017), decided on 21.02.2017, wherein this Court observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid, respectfully following the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Gram Panchayat Pusawali (supra), this writ petition is dismissed on the ground that Sri Arvind Srivastava has no authority to represent the Gram Sabha in question. The concerned Gram Sabha shall be at liberty to seek redressal of its grievances, if any, in accordance with the procedure established by law."

8. The last authority cited by learned Standing Counsel is Ata Nasiba and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 17547 of 2020), decided on 02.11.2020 wherein the Court held as under:

"It is otherwise reflected from the records that petitioner no.1 has only acted as Pradhan in raising the objection and thereafter pursuing the appeal. Her attempt to resile her status of Gram Pradhan and to institute the petition in her personal capacity, only to circumvent the provisions contained under Section 72 (4)of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, therefore, cannot be allowed to succeed."

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

10. It is not disputed that present writ petition is filed by petitioner in the capacity of Pradhan of concerned Gaon Sabha. It is also not disputed that neither Gaon Sabha has passed any resolution to authorise petitioner-Pradhan to file this writ petition nor any resolution is passed to appoint any independent lawyer. It is also not contended that even any such resolution was placed for consideration before the members of Gaon Sabha. The judgments relied by learned counsel for petitioner are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of present case as they were passed in relation to representative suit [Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Jaipur (supra)] and when no counsel was appointed by Gaon Sabha [Land Management Committee (supra)], whereas in the present case Sri Brij Lal and Sri Subhash Chandra, Advocates appeared and submitted that they are the panel counsel of Gaon Sabha concerned, which is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. On the contrary, judgments relied by learned Standing Counsel are on the specific point that Gaon Sabha or Pradhan has no independent authority to appoint a separate lawyer to file petition. So far as interest of Gaon Sabha is concerned, it is up to the Gaon Sabha to take appropriate decision to challenge the impugned order.

11. In view of above discussion, petitioner, the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha concerned, has no authority or locus standi to file the present writ petition challenging impugned orders through an independent Advocate, without any resolution in this regard. The judgments cited by respondents squarely applies on the facts of present case and, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be rejected on this ground only.

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, Gaon Sabha concerned is at liberty to take appropriate decision in accordance with law to challenge the impugned orders.

Order Date :- 10.08.2021

AK