IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4634 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 25, 2011 Jug Lal and others .. Appellants Vs. Gram Panchayat, village Bhadar .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 13.11.2011 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff restraining the Gram Panchayat, village Bhadar from constructing any drain in between 16' vide street passing through the area where houses of the plaintiffs and other inhabitants are situated. He has alleged that if the Gram Panchayat construct 5' to 6' wide drain in the street, then they would certainly suffer an irreparable loss and the said drain would be source of nuisance. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant (herein referred as, 'the defendants') appeared and contested the cause by filing written statement. It was further averred that the gram panchayat is owner of the site in question and has a right to construct the drain for the benefit of the village community and clearing the dirty and rainy water in rainy season. Even otherwise, 10' vide street is not insufficient for the houses to be used as pathway. The gram panchayat is fully empowered to do the development work for welfare of the village community. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court vide order dated 11.11.2004 framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the Gram Panchayat is digging the Nala in dispute in an illegal manner?OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of mandatory notice?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Relief. R.S.A. No. 4634 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** Both the parties led evidence. Both the courts below returned the concurrent findings of fact that the case is based on mis-apprehension and no prior notice of two months as envisaged under Section 204 Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was issued, therefore, the suit is not maintianable. In this case the plaintiff himself has not appeared in the witness box but has examined his son as PW-1. He was not appointed as power of attorney at the time when the suit was filed. In any case, Surta Singh son of the plaintiff has admitted during cross examination that he has seen the land and it is shamlat land (common land). He has further admitted that it devolves upon the gram panchayat and it may also be observed that width of the street is not too small to accommodate the drain and the drain if constructed would not create any obstruction in the passage. Since it is one of the powers of Gram Panchayat to make arrangement, construction and maintenance of the streets, drains and ponds for the welfare and development of the village community, as such no such injunction restraining the gram panchayat to perform obligation as imposed by the law could be granted unless the same is detrimental to the rights or they cause special damage to the village community. However, it should take all precautions and safety and security of the villagers and do such development work while taking necessary safeguards so that the village community may not suffer from any hazardous diseases. No substantial question of law arises in this case for determination Dismissed. November 25, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge