jimiafi.as.aii —/6 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SiNGLE BENCH: MON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRITPETITION N0. S3S8 OF 2005 PETlTtONER' RESPONDENTS 1. Sujit Pandey S/o Bhaiyaial Pandey, aged about 34 years 2. Aman S/o Shmusuddin Jivani'aged about 30 years 3. Shabnam W/o Aman aged about 26 years 4. Manish Nagraj S/o Chaitudas aged about28 years. 5. Abdul Vahid S/o Naim aged about 32 years, 6. Salim Moh. S/o Nasar Moh. Aged 32 years. 7. Sushil Soni S/o Ramdulare ageci about 25 years 8. Gajadhar S/o Asha Ramaged aged about 34 yrs. 9. Manoj S/o Bihari Lat Mishra Aged about 25 yrs. 10. Rajesh S/o Shri Narayan Shrivastav aged about 35 yrs. All resident of Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kavvardha Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Vs. 1. State of Chhatisgarh, Though Secretary PanchayatS Social Welfare Department Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. Coilector, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 3. Sub-Divisionat Officer, Kawardh Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 4. Smt. vimla, Sarpanch Village gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 5. Tahsildar Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha, Distt. ' Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. :'"^ 1 i. .^ •T-j^iiitjtiBnF?wfa»« ^••^u&^^-^i^.^n^vKfww/i -a.- PETITIONERS WRIT PETITtON N0.667S OF 2005 1. Kailash Dubey S/o. Dwarika Dubey aged about 30 years 2. Mahaveer Chopda S/o Oyanchand Chopda aged about 32 years 3, Yogesh Chopda S/o Nemichand Chopda aged about 30 years 4. Ravinarayan Namdev S/o Shri itwari namdev aged about 32 years 5. Seema srivastava c/o Goukarn Shrivastava aged about 28 years 6. Sohan Srhivastava S/a Tribhun Srivastava aged about 32 years 7. Sanjay Shristava S/o Krishankumar aged 32 years 8. Nand Shriwas S/o Gorelal Shriwas aged about 35 years 9. Denesh Rajpur S/o Karan Singh Rajput aged about 34 yrs. 10. Mahendra Tigga S/o Lekh Ram Tigga Aged about 32 yrs. All resident of Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) SESPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhatisgarh, Though Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Department ^4antralaya DKS Bhawan RaipurC.G. 2. Coltector, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 3. Sub-Divjsional Officer, Kawardh Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 4. Smt. vimla, Sarpanch Village gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt- Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G, 5. Tahsildar Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G, PETITiONERS WRIT PETITION N0.6579 OF 2006 1. Kadar S/o Sekh Pyare age.d about 30 years 2. Kaiiash Nagraj S/o Shashibabu ageci about 30 years. 3. Rajendra Tiwari S/o Radheshyam aged about 32 years ^ pij-^'fiittnTssa' 2>- 4. Ajay Yadav S/o Motiram aged about 38 years. 5. Toran Yadav S/o Rupau Yadav aged about 32 years 6. Santkumar S/o Ramesh Nisad aged 32aboutyears 7. Smt. Shaviirl W/o Ramesh Nisad aged about 55 yaars 8. Manoj Shriwas S/o Dautal aged about 34 yrs. 9. Kanhaiya S/o Dulari sen aged about 32yrs. 10. Bhuiashwar Jaiswal S/o Anant Ram Jaiswal aged afaQut 35 yrs. Atl restdent of Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Dtstt. Kabirdham (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhatisgarh, Though Secretary Panchayat & Soclal Weifare Department Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. Collactor, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kawardh Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 4. Smt. vimla. Sarpanch Village gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 5. Tahsildar Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. PETITIONERS WRIT PETtTION N0.6581 OF 200S 1. Humik Jaiswal S/o Mehatter Jaiswal aged about 30 years 2. Syam Lal S/o Lacchi Shriwas aged about 30 years 3.' Sandeep Jaiswaai S/o Dil'ip Jaiswal aaed about 32 years 4. Dilip Jaiswal S/o Johan Jaiswal aged about 58 years 5. Rupram Jaiswal S/o Anantram aged about 32 years 6. Ajay Kant S/o IWandan Mohan aged 32 years 7. Vinit dubey S/o Rajendra Dubey aged about 35 years n 1 1 ••-•I .1 1 ll ; '^ Ij. 1 :j -•4 8. Guljari S/o Ramsingh aged about 34 yrs. 9. Kailash Dhurwe S/o Vedram Aged about32yrs. 10. Manmohan S/o Lacchi Nai aged about , 35yrs. All resident of Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawarciha Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhatisgarh, Though Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Department Mantrateya DKS Bhawan RaipurC.G. 2. Collector, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kawardh Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 4. Smt. vimla, Sarpanch Village gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. 5. Tahsildar Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha, Distt, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. PETiTlONeRS WRIT PETITiON NO.eS82 OF 2005 1. Naman lohi S/o P.N. Lohi aged about 30 years 2. Razak S/o Gafar aged about 30 years 3. Rajsndra Soni S/o Bisahu Soni aged about 22 years 4. Laxmi Soni W/o Bisahu aged about 58 years 5. Bela Soni S/o Kishn soni aged about 32 yeara 6. Suresh S/o Bharat Prasad Mishra aged 32 years 7. Vijay Soni S/o Goukaran lai aged about 25 years 8. Sarita Mtehra C/o Santosh aged about 24 yrs. 9. Swati C/o Ramau Aged aboyt 25 yrs. Harjit Singh S/o Ajit Singh aged 35 yrs. All resident of Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) -5'- Vs. RESP5NDENTS 2- 3. State of Chhatisgarh, Though Secrelary Panchayat & Social Welfare Department Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. Collector, Distt- Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kawardh Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. Smt. vimta, Sarpanch Village gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha)C.G. Tahsildar Sahaspur Lohara Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. Present: Mr. D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr, Yashwant Singh, learned O.A. for the State of CG, Mr. Sameer Sahu. iearned counsel for respondent No.4. ORALORDER (Passedon12tn January, 2006) The petitioners 50 in number were granted small pieces of iand each admeasuring '8x10' owned by Gram Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara vide its resojution No.16 dated 18/08/2004 for business purpose in terms of Section 65(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1983 (for .short "the Adhlniyam") after obtatning approval of the Collector, 'Kabirdham d'jstrict (Kawarcfha) subject to certein terms and conditions. It appears toat after the fourth respondent was elected as Sarpanch of Sahaspur Lohara Gram Panchayat, she lodged complaints with the respondent authorities complaining thal the lease of the land in favour of tha petitianar was irregular and illegat. That has rasulted in an inspection of the proceedings of the grants made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Section S4 of the Adhinlyam. Accordingty, the Sub Divjsional Officer, Kawardha, third respondent herein, is conducting an enquiry into the altegation and the enquiry and 1 am told It is In progress. When the matter stood thus, the third respondent by his order has stayed the construction in the spaces allotted to the petitioners till further orders. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above action of the third respondent have filed these writ petitions. (2) Heard learned counset for the parties. It was contended by the tearned counsei for the petitioners that the impugned order is one without authority of law, because, the Gram Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara before passing the resolution on 18/08/2004 had secured the approval of the ColteCtor, Kawardha district and therefore, it is beyond the authority of the third respondent to question the correctness of the resolution No.16 dated 18/08/2004. Lsarned Govt. Advocate, per contra, would support the impugned action and contend that since the irispection and enquiry contampiatsd under Section 84 of the Adhiniyam is already initiated, it is very much within the power of the third respondent to pass the impugned direction in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. (3) Section 84 of the Adhiniyam contemplatss that the officer of the State Government duly authorized by the State Qovernment can inspect the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and he can exereise such powers as prescribed under the Inspection of Proceedings Rules, 1995. Saction 85 provides that the State Govemment or ths prescribed authority may by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein •tc])(iB}itrit!i: ltft<.;itf «»i -7- suspend the eKecution of any resolution passsd, order issusd, licence or permission granted or prohibit the performance of any act by a Panchayat, if in his opfnion, among other cireumstances, such resolutlon, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by the-Adhiniyam or is contrary to any law, Since the enquiry and inspection has ;been set in motion in terms of Section 84 of the Adhiniyam, it cannot be said that the third respondent lacks legal power to prohibit cofistruction in the spaces altotted to the petitioners pending completion of the enquiry or till further orders. Be that as it may, in terms of practicality and in the interest of both the parties, the order made by the third respondent impufined in this writ petition is just and reasonabte and that order ts tntended to maintain the status quo. There is no merit in ttiis writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The third respondent is, however, directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate final order expeditiously. SdA Chief Justice Judge (Br^•^ -t^;'