Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Village Panchayat, Dharna Wadhona, ... vs Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur ... on 13 September, 1966

Gram Panchayat, Yerkheda, Kamptee, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 14 August, 2025

In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Village Panchayat, Dharna Wadhona, Buzruk and others .vs. 22 WP 7126.24 Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others (supra), Deep Narayan Chavhan (supra) and State of Maharashtra and another .vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others (supra). The petitioners have relied upon para 38 in the case of Jalgaon Municipal Council, which reads as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - M S Jawalkar - Full Document

Sheshroa Bhauro Jadhav vs Commissioner, Aurangabad Division And ... on 8 March, 1982

10. The Village Panchayat in Dharna's case (supra) had passed a resolution for break up of the Panchayat on 18th July 1961. After elections thereafter, the Panchayat passed a contrary resolution on 7th December 1964. The Commissioner issued the impugned notification under Section 4 separating the villages thereafter on 2nd December 1965. Neither the newly elected Panchayat was consulted much less its members individually. The Court held that the notification was bad in law for want of (1) consultation with the Panchayat as constituted on the date of decision after elections and (2) opportunity to such individual members affected to show cause against such break up. The discussion in Paragraph (14) shows that the Court was satisfied that 1961 resolution of the Panchayat was ever placed before the Commissioner. This amounts to a finding that there was no consultation with even the Panchayat as existed before elections of 1963 or constituted thereafter. This finding of fact was enough by itself to support the petitioner's case therein and decision on the law points raised was really unneccessary. This apart, we find it difficult to agree with the view that the Commissioner was under any obligation to verify the views of the Panchayat after the elections were on the record or that the members vacating the office consequent to break up of the Panchayat were entitled to any independent hearing. With great respect, such a view is not warranted by the wording of section 4 of the Act and Mr. Bora could not draw our attention to any principle or authority for such a proposition. The discussion in paragraphs (15) and (16) is too scanty to afford any linking of the principle underlying the said view.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gram Panchayat And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 24 October, 2007

In Village Panchayat Dharna Wadhana v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division reported at 1967 Mh.L.J. 351 and Laxman v. State of Maharashtra reported at 1990 Mh.L.J. 574, Gram Sudhar Samiti v. Gram Panchayat reported at which pertain to alteration of boundaries of a Village Panchayat, this Court underlined the necessity for consulting the persons affected. There can be no doubt that whenever boundaries of a local body are required to be altered, consultation with bodies likely to be affected would be necessary. Section 4(2) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act prescribes consulting the Gram Panchayat. However, it does not elaborate the procedure for consultation. Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act on the other hand refers to procedure prescribed in Section 3 of the said Act which requires that before notifying a change the State Government shall publish (i) a Notification in official gazette, (ii) in a newspaper circulating in the area and (iii) by pasting copies in conspicuous areas prolonging its intentions.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R C Chavan - Full Document
1