IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2189 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- RANINGPARA GRAM PANCHAYAT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PJ KANABAR for Petitioners MR SH SHELAT, ADDL. AG with MR AD OZA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Date of Judgment: 20/10/2000 CAV JUDGMENT In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Sarpanch of Raningpara Gram Panchayat and the Sarpanches of 20 other villages have challenged the Government notification dated 31.12.1999 shifting these villages from Rajula taluka to Khambha taluka of Amreli District. 2. In a separate judgment delivered today in Special Civil Application No. 10459 of 1999, this Court has already examined the legal contentions regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and the contention about the application of the principle of audi alteram partem in such matters. For the reasons already recorded therein, this Court reiterates the view taken in the said decision that the village panchayat, members of the village panchayat or the residents of the village do not have any right to be heard before the State Government exercises its powers under the provisions of Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for including a particular village in a particular taluka or to shift/exclude it from one taluka and to include it in another taluka. 3. Prior to reconstitution of the districts and talukas in October, 1997, the villages in question were in Rajula taluka. Upon birfurcation of Rajula taluka into Rajula taluka and Khambha taluka, the villages were placed in Rajula taluka. By the impugned notification dated 31.12.1999, the villages have been shifted from Rajula taluka to Khambha taluka. 4. Affidavit in reply has been filed by Ms Anju Sharma, IAS, Collector, Amreli. It is pointed out that upon reconstitution of the talukas on 15th October, 1997, there were 93 villages in Rajula taluka but the Khambha taluka had only 36 villages. After undertaking the exercise for reconstitution of the talukas, now the Rajula taluka has in all 72 villages and Khambha taluka has 57 villages by shifting the 21 villages in question from Rajula taluka to Khambha taluka. The allegation that the shifting has been done to separate the Patel community from Rajuka taluka is denied. It is submitted that the shifting has been done only in view of the geographical location of the villages. 5. At the hearing of the petition, the learned Addl. Advocate General has also given particulars of the distance of the 21 villages in question from Rajula taluka headquarter and the distance from Khambha taluka headquarter. Name of the village Distance (in Kms.) From From Rajula Khambha ------------------- ------ ------- Sarakdia 22 7 Raningpara 25 7 Kodiya 22 8 Raydi 19 12 Pati 17 16 Jivapar 16 14 Jamka 25 15 Vangadhra 21 17 Nava Malknes 26 14 Dedan 22 11 Trakuda 18 15 Bhundani 18 17 Munjiyasar 20 14 Nigara-2 21 18 Barman Mota 17 20 Barman Nana 18 21 Samadhiyala-2 16 14 Navikatar 15 15 Nesdi-2 17 18 Gorana 14 19 Juna Malaknes 26 14 It is clear from the aforesaid chart also that the shifting of the villages from Rajula to Khambha taluka is not likely to cause any inconvenience. It is only in 4 cases that their distance from the taluka headquarters will increase but looking to the administrative requirements to make both the talukas viable for proper administrative control, no fault can be found with the impugned decision. The Court does not sit in appeal over the Government decisions in such matters. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah, J.) sundar/-