Y\ F.^^ t.; ' IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE, AlLBILASPini CHHATTISGARH 6^^- W.P.tCl. N0. OF 2009 PETITIONERS :- /l. Dhaja Ram Rafa-e S/o Kariya aged 48 years R/o 'ViUage Tegnipali, preserktly Panch Ward No. 07 Gram Pafic&ayat / ,^^ ^M ^^^ ^<%/?/ ^'-^ ^" >»' .^"T M< Ranisagar ,P.8 & Block 85 TehsU Saraagarh District Raigarh (C.G). 2. Pramod Mishra S/o aged 34 years Panch Ward No.15 Gram Panehayat Sahaspur , Block & Tehsil SarafigSErh District Raigarh (C.G). ^3. Sahdeo S/o Sakha Ram aged 47 years Panch Ward No. 8 Grain Panchayat Kutela Btock & Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh(C.G). 4. RainnatiiS/o Arvind Sidar aged 29 years Panch 'WEard tifo. ^® Grain Panchayat Chandai Sla^fe ^ 8s Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :-^1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat 8s Rural A» Development Department D.K.S, Bhavan Mantralay Raipur (C.G). / 2. Secretary Urban Administa-ation Ss, Development Department D.K.S, Bhavan Mantralay Raipur (C.G). /3. Collector Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G). / 4. Nagar Panchayat Sarangarh District Raigarh Through:- Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226Z227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIOONER:- As set out in the cause title. 2. RSiRTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As set out in the cause title. ^^ <». t -. HI©W,(30URT^F©MH^TSlS^Ry:,B[LASRU^^w ^R11-PETIT10S^^Q:®4^©K260®'.^'^ EEIHIQNERS, .'. .;^^^^^'^^ ,^I^S ^'^'^ :;\:;: - ,,^''':^ ¥^-^' : ::.'^ •^ESPQNBENTS -;.. !'^^^^ • • ,^'"'(Writ^Petition:'undeFAi1®1^26/Z2^(3ftth ^; ^SingleBenGhlKI-^"Ble®WR®afi|ffilS;;Agn}hs |Present:^';:'®h S|^^ancJ%i^S/o®g8^^[|IBsii|titisn^ :. .'SKH^K£®Hsid,i^r^l^nail^Wy^1^i^^St^'^ / •!l;i.; }:^S!h;ri^R.&"PaiNI,^wc>calB^F^ ...:..:..:^,'-;-QR@Efi_^©R^;y.:<;;:^1. '<Rass®dro@hi^13m^ay'ctf'Juiy,2Q1.0)^^ 1. The pefitibners,. who 'are ^esidents of. four Villages, which; were disestabljshed by\notifi<^ti d^t^. 9-10^^ .' sybsec:|uently.^0Rj(Sjgll^^aBlisft|d^3ro%g|ze(t^ ! dSfe^^ ,'.^^/:'](^l'Mgxuge(-|lR^^|ig^ :'^''i,?^diS©^l:ilisBmgHt®W^?yn]agestMeFe prescribed' ^undei'i Sectjon 12& 6f We ^l-iB^tfisgarlT PaniShaysit^ Raj Adhiniyam, 1:993 (fersAorf%®AGffi^^n7,^935 .readsvitft^^ ofthe Chhattisgarh PanClrayat(A]teFation, Limits,CT or;.Chahge Of/Meadquarfere^Ryies,' 1994^^^ 1994"f: The requiremenfbefQFei|iSestabliShment6fvi!lage isthat n<D prder'shair^be issued unless'^ notiee' 6f W^ objection.frcirn persens likely toibe affected lBet6by^tfe date^W^ ^••ispecified.fhemmhasjbeen^pulslis^ the QbjeiaiGns rSesivedfK^FeoffhayeBeeriednside^ 2. Shri Nahde, learned ;edunse|' apip^riRg,^.?fl-ie®etitjQtiers,subRCiits: thaftheriptificationd^ed[9^.0^Q09^nBexuFe]—F^3^ : .^pufcilishea.in gazette^a{eff,2D^;0^@9?^i^t!%®^ issueciwithoutcomplyihg'wit t^s^ute^i^Uir^ :'oflaw.:..'.' ':;-:';:: •••^•':'•• '•;''^:':':.::'',"-! ^': '.:.^\'' ••:'/:°"':^:':.s; -,,/' SF •Ni-a"!:: teiE. Sa M 6. ^s- 7." Notice in the instant oase -was issued on 9-11-2009. Respondenf/State was grarited fwo weeks time to file reply. Thereafter, oh 25-11-2009, 1-2-2010 and 9-3-2010 furtherfimewas granted to file reply. Qn 17-6-2010 as a last opportunity, one week timewas granted totheStatetofile return and itwas made clearthat "failingwhich it maybe presumed thatlhe respondenfs have nothing tosayinthematfer". - Despite last opportunify granted to the State, no response has been filed till date and.as such, it is presumed that the respondent State has ndthing tosay ih fhe matter. The respondent No.4 has filed return. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the'respondentNo,4, sybmifstHat if is not neGessary .to invite pbjectionsfrQrn alHbe persoris liKelyfo be aftected, iffrteno ;ol^g<SiG)h.GeHifk:ate'has'been, given by^.fh8t©r^ publieation ofncrtificatioh.ShriRatelfUrthersubmitsthatevenallffi Gram Panchayats have not been impleaded as party/ respontlents. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 1 have heard learnied counselappearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appehded thereto. It is evident that the impugried notificationdated 9-10-2009, whichhaspresumably been issued in exercise of power under Section 126 of the; Adhiniyam, 1993 cannot be termed asnotice inviting objections frorn tha persohs likelyto be affected. : 'Section 126 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 reads a&under: "Disestablishment-of village,- (1) The Governor or fhe authority, authoijized by him may, by an order in Iwritihg, , disestablish a viltage: i Rrovided •that no such ord^rshaH ^ ^ be issued unless a notice !6f the proposal inviting objeeti0ns..from^p6rsons likely to • be affected' .thereby ' the dgte specified therein has been puhlished in to be 4i j^fe^-' ^'1'-'^'-^1 :'':'^-'-1^^ ^?^''-''^; ' -) ;-' '1--- -^-' 1 ] li!l! i ii yiiii 9. 10. Al- the prescrib&d manngp ancl fl-ie objections receiveclHavebeencQnsideFed. (2} .^ rr^ng (^^^ ; section (1) the Qovernor or the authority authonzed :by him may pass 'such consequential drders as may be necessary." : '. Ruie4oftheRules,1S94readSasundgr: • "4. Dis^stablishment of village- (1) Where. the Goyernor' or the authority ,• authorizgd by tiim decides under sub- - section (1) of Section 126 to disestablish , any village He/it shall declare his/its : • intention in the f&rm qf proposal to d6 so by publishing^a notifieatiori specified the. viltag& proposec] to be disestablished in the "Chhattisgarh,Gazette"ahdbyaffixihg a copy thereof on the nptice board of the : Gram Panchayat conGerned. (2) the provisicins" of sub-rule (3) of; Rule3 shall applytothe notification under •sub-rule:C1)S:;;.('v 'y '- :.,- ••^ 1 :' Bare petasat''Gf'Sec^n ^SS^^e^fts^ the RLrtes, .3994/make(itc;leaFfMattl i^Ganrot'Bey ofanyvillage.eitherbymakingitapartorexcludingiifromttTe'area of'a local authority. It is a clearviolatiQn ofstatutory rec|uiremertt cif: Section 126 oftheAdhiniyam, 1993 ahd Rule 4 ofthe Rufes, 1994, which amounts to violation of Article 14 of thie Constitution of India, as the persons residingin lthelvillages,whiGh:are being.made apart of Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh, are not noticed.Tor objeGtions, if any. . . : ' : • : ^ ', !'. •: ! : ' ' : ,: :.: . Gontention advaneed by Shri Patel,.learned Gounsel appearing fot 'the respondent No.4, thaf no objeetion from fhe, Gram Panehayat satisfies the requirement of provistons of .Section 126 of the: Adhiniyam, 1993 read with :Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, is flotieed to be rejected, as no objeGtion from the; Grarn ipanchayat do^ not satisfy the statutory requirement of notice under Section 12&c^^^ ^dhiniyam, 1993 read wjtM Rule 4 of -fhe Rules; 1994 to persons^ m (Sowri affected by disestablis^inenf'of a village. THere is^ n6 contemialation of any no objecfion from the Grarn Panchayat alDne, but all the persons/residence of the area of a village, whieh is being disestablished are to be noticed inviting objectiohs, if any, before. issuing the notifiGation by disesfablishfnent ^of a villag®The next contention that all ttie Panichayafs have hot beeri irripleaded as necessary parties/resportdents is also ndt relevant, as the Gram Panchayats are nQtnecessary pSrties in caseGifdisestablishmentof a village, as there has fo be a nQlice of fhe proposal inviting Objecfion from all th& persons likely to be affected by disestahlishmentofavillage. , 11. The similar issue came up for consideratioh before the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Umeshawari Bai v. Stat® of CHhattisgarH& Others1, wheFelh the nofificatiortwasq 12. The nofifiGationdated 9-10-2009 (Annexure — P/1) and fhe subsequent notification dated 20-10-2009.(Annexure-R4/1) arenot in accordancewith law, illegal and impropeF. The same deserve tp be quashed. However, on the request of learned ebunsel for the State/respondents, liberty is reserved to the State Government fo initiate'fresh steps for disestablishment, ifsoadvised,in accordance wifhlaw.asprescribedunderSection 126 oftheAdhihiyam, 1993 read with Rute4 ofthe Rules, 1994. 13. In viewofforegoing.theirnpugnednotjficationdated 9-10-2009 .^' ..'• ; ' ' .'.'••:. ' ''.'.'• •.'••• '•. .: •'...'•:. '.'" '.. '•:. '. ':•'•:•'' '..:.: ''••:•'. ...'.;• '".- ".•;''. (Anhexure—P/1) is quashed. The writ petition is allowec). No order asto costs. Sd/- satish K. Agiuhotri .»". uw ' WP (C)No.6598 of2008 (decided on 19-2-2Q10) '^^aasiss^.