Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These two petitions raise a short question as to the validity of Section 96 Sub-section (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act of 1961). The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1596 of 1968 is the Jaspur Gram Panchayat while the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 363 of 1969 is the Khodiyar Gram Panchayat. Both these gram panchayats are bodies corporate constituted under the Act of 1961 for the respective grams of Jaspur and Khodiyar. Though Jaspur and Khodiyar are situated in different revenue districts, they adjoin each other and have part of their boundary common. It was common ground between the parties that Survey No. 391 which constitutes grazing land in village Jaspur was originally Government land and it was vested by Government in Jaspur Village Panchayat as then constituted sometime in June 1950 under Section 28B of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1933) and so also Survey Nos. 255, 258 and 265 which constitute grazing lands in village Khodiyar and which were originally Government lands were vested by Government in Khodiyar Village Panchayat as then constituted sometime in 1958 under the same section of the Act of 1933. The vesting of grazing land being Survey No. 391 in village Jaspur was subject to four conditions as set out in the Circular dated 9th June 1950 issued by the then Government of Bombay and since none of these conditions is material for the purpose of the present petitions, we need not refer to them. So far as grazing lands being Survey Nos. 255, 258, 260 and 265 in village Khodiyar are concerned, the vesting of these grazing lands was also subject to the same four conditions as set out in the circular dated 9th June 1950, but there was also an additional condition as set out in Clause 9 introduced in the circular dated 9th June 1950 by a resolution of the Government dated 19th September 1957 and that additional condition was that the said grazing lands shall be liable to be resumed by the Government at any time without payment of compensation. These grazing lands which were vested in Jaspur and Khodiyar Village Panchayats as aforesaid continued to be used as grazing lands and it was an accepted position that no breach of any condition of vesting was committed by either of the two Panchayats. The Act of 1933 was repealed by Section 185 of the Act of 1958 but by reason of the saving provision enacted in Section 186, the old Panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1933 were deemed to be the new Panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1958 and these grazing lands vesting in the old Village Panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar became vested in the new panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar from the date of coming into force of the Act of 1958. The respective Panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1958 thereafter continued to use the grazing lands vested in them for the purpose of grazing of cattle and again it was common ground that no breach of any of the conditions of vesting was committed by them. The Act of 1958 was then repealed by the Act of 1961 but by reason of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 325 of the Act of 1961, the village panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1958 immediately before the date of coming into force of the Act of 1961 were deemed to be the new Gram Panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar and the grazing lands vesting in the old village panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar became, from the said date, vested in the new gram panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar, that is, the petitioners in the present petitions under Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 325. The petitioners continued the use of these grazing lands for the purpose of grazing cattle and complied with all the conditions on which these grazing lands were originally vested by the Government.

28B. (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, the State Government may, subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may think fit to impose, vest in a panchayat open sites, waste, vacant or grazing lands or public roads and streets, wells, riverbeds, tanks, trees or any other property in the village vesting in the Government.
The contention of the petitioner was that the word "vest" in the context in which it occurred and particularly having regard to Sections 29, 30, 31(1)(i) and 32 of the Act of 1933 clearly connoted transfer of proprietary interest and when Government vested the grazing lands in the Jaspur and Khodiyar Village Panchayats under Section 28B, there was transfer of proprietary interest in the grazing lands to the two respective panchayats. The respondents on the other hand urged that the opening words of Section 28B, namely "For the purposes of this Chapter" suggested that the vesting contemplated under that section was for a limited purpose and what was therefore vested in the Jaspur and Khodiyar Village Panchayats was not any proprietary interest in the grazing lands but mere right to obtain and deal with the grazing lands for the purpose of discharging the functions and duties laid upon them under the Act of 1933. These rival contentions raised an interesting question as to the proper meaning to be given to the word "vest" in Section 28B. The word "vest" as is now well-known, has a variety of significations depending on the context in which it is used. It may mean transfer of proprietary interest in the land or it may mean transfer of the right to possession of the land or the right to obtain and deal with the land. To illustrate, the word "vest" in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is used in the sense of transferring proprietary interest in the land while the same word in Section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 or in Section 134 of the English Lunacy Act, 1890, is used to denote transference of the right to obtain and deal with the property of the insolvent or the lunatic, as the case may be, without being actual owner of it. The question is what is the sense in which this word was used in Section 28B of the Act of 1933? Prime facie it would seem that the argument of the petitioners was well founded and the word "vest" was used in Section 28B to denote transfer of proprietary interest and not transfer of mere right to obtain and deal with the property. But we do not think it necessary to express any definite opinion on this point because we are of the view that even if vesting contemplated in Section 28B involved transfer of proprietary interest as claimed by the petitioners and proprietary interest in the grazing lands was consequently transferred by the Government to the respective village panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar, the resumption of the grazing lands by the Government under Section 96 Sub-section (4) did not involve acquisition of property belonging to the petitioners and Section 96 Sub-section (4) did not, therefore, offend Article 31(2) of the Constitution.

6. The grazing lands were vested in the village panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar as constituted under the Act of 1933 and they continued to be used by the two respective panchayats as grazing lands in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of vesting. The Act of 1933 was repealed by Section 185 of the Act of 1958 and Section 186 of the Act of 1958 provided that the panchayats constituted under the Act of 1933 immediately before the date of coming into force of the Act of 1958 shall be deemed to be panchayats of the respective villages and all the properties vesting in the old panchayats shall from the said date vest in the new panchayats. The old panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1933 immediately before the coming into force of the Act of 1958 were, therefore, deemed to be the new panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1958 and the grazing lands vesting in the old panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar became vested in the new panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar. The new panchayats of Jaspur and Khodiyar constituted under the Act of 1958 continued to use the grazing lands for the purpose of grazing of cattle subject to the conditions on which they were vested by the Government. Then came the Act of 1961 which by Section 325 Sub-section (1) repealed the Act of 1958. The repeal of the Act of 1958 would naturally bring to an end the village panchayats constituted under the Act of 1958 and new gram panchayats would have to be constituted under the Act of 1961. This would necessarily take a certain amount of time causing a hiatus in the continuity of local self Government. The Legislature, therefore, provided in Section 325 Sub-section (2) Clause (ii) that:

7. Re: Ground (B): That takes us to the next ground of attack, namely, that the impugned orders of resumption were made by the Government mala fide. Now when we look at the petitions it is difficult to understand what exactly the petitioners mean when they say that the impugned orders of resumption are vitiated by mala fides. It is not their case in the petitions nor even in the affidavits-in-rejoinder that the purpose for which the grazing lands were sought to be resumed by the Government, namely construction of Sewage Treatment Plant of Gandhinagar Capital Project did not exist or that there was a collateral purpose for which the grazing, lands were resumed by the Government and the purpose of Sewage Treatment Plant shown in the impugned orders of resumption was a mere camouflage. It was also not the case of the petitioners in the pleadings nor even at the hearing of the petitions before us that the grazing lands sought to be resumed by the Government were not fit or suitable for the purpose of putting up the Sewage Treatment Plant. The only ground on which the allegation of mala fides was founded was that the Government had originally decided to locate the Sewage Treatment Plant in Ognaj and Chharodi and had actually proceeded up to the stage of issue of Section 6 notification for the purpose of acquiring lands in Ognaj and Chharodi for putting up the Sewage Treatment Plant but all of a sudden the decision to locate the Sewage Treatment Plant in Ognaj and Chharodi was changed in the Capital Project Office and it was decided to locate the Sewage Treatment Plant in Jaspur and Khodiyar. This sudden change of decision after "proposals for acquisition were already made and necessary notifications under Section 6 were also issued" in respect of lands situate in Ognaj and Chharodi, said the petitioners, clearly and irresistibly led to the inference that there was some manoeuvre-ing in the Capital Project Office the Capital Project Office was influenced by interested parties to change its decision and it was only as a result of the manoeuvreing that the Capital Project Office changed its decision and approached the Government to facilitate its design to obtain the grazing lands of Jaspur and Khodiyar gram panchayats. The petitioners alleged that "the Act of the Government of Gujarat in submitting to the illegal, improper and dishonest demand of the Capital Project authority i e., the Executive Engineer, Capital Project is mala fide act as the Executive Engineer, Capital Project has acted with ulterior motives and acted mala fide in shifting its ground as regards Sewage Treatment Plant intentionally and further he has also invoked the authority of Government and has prevailed upon the Government to resolve for resumption of the grazing land of village Jaspur. "Vide paragraph 22 of the petition in Special Civil Application No. 1596 of 1968. Now if we closely scrutinize these allegations it is apparent that the only complaint of mala fides against the Government was that the Government submitted to the illegal, improper and dishonest demand of the Capital Project Office to change the location of the Sewage Treatment plant from Ognaj and Chharodi to Jaspur and Khodiyar. It was not alleged in the petitions nor even in the affidavits-in-rejoinder that the Government was improperly prevailed upon by interested persons to change the decision in regard to location of the Sewage Treatment Plant. The gravamen of the attack in the petitions was against the Capital Project Office. The bona fides of the decision of the Capital Project Office to change the location of the Sewage Treatment Plant were challenged in the petitions and it was alleged that the Executive Engineer, Capital Project Office, acted with ulterior motives though it was nowhere clearly stated what those ulterior motives were so far as the people of Jaspur and Khodiyar were concerned. Now the impugned orders of resumption were made by the Government and not by the Capital Project Office, and, therefore, unless it is established by the petitioners that the Government acted mala fide in making the impugned orders of resumption, the impugned orders of resumption cannot be held to be bad. The allegation against the Government was that the Government submitted to the illegal, improper and dishonest demand of the Capital Project Office. It may be noted that it was not even alleged in the petitions that the Govt, submitted to the illegal improper and dishonest demand of the Capital Project Office with knowledge that the Capital Project Office was actuated by ulterior motives or that the Government knew that the decision to shift the location of the Sewage Treatment Plant was taken by the Capital Project Office for the purpose of favouring the landholders of Ognaj and Chharodi. It is quite possible that the Government might have accepted the decision of the Capital Project Office to shift the location of the Sewage Treatment Plant bona fide on the basis of facts and circumstances placed before it by the Capital Project Office. A mere allegation that the Government submitted to the illegal, improper and dishonest demand of the Capital Project Office cannot, therefore be regarded as sufficient to impute mala fides to the Government.