The Sarpanch vs Manveer Singh

2023INSC769 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5281 OF 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(S). 8655 OF 2022)

THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, LONGWALA PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PILIBANGA, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANVEER SINGH AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 621 OF 2023

IN (S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO(S). 8655 OF 2022)

J U D G M E N T

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Longewala,

District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan/ Respondent No. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.08.24

4 in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2020 on the file 17:56:57 IST Reason:

of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan is 1 the Appellant. The appeal arises from the Order

dated 24.01.2022.

3. The First Respondent in the Civil Appeal

filed Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2020, canvassing

the public interest of the villagers of the

Longewala before the High Court. The following

chronology is noted:

On 05.08.2019, the Panchayat passed a

resolution for upgrading the infrastructure of

the old Panchayat Bhawan from the budget

sanctioned by the Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.

On 11.12.2019, the Zila Parishad sanctioned

the proposal to upgrade the infrastructure of

the old Panchayat Bhawan.

The Appellant representing the Gram

Panchayat, on 15.03.2020, issued a work order to

one M/s A-One Construction Company to upgrade

the infrastructure of old Panchayat Bhawan.

2

4. The expression ‘upgradation of

infrastructure’ in the preceding narrative is

repetitive and necessary in as much as the

Appellant as available from the record deviated

from the resolution, sanction/ work order and

constructed a new building for the Gram

Panchayat in the playground of a school run by

the Education Department in the Village. The

First Respondent states and established in the

High Court that the plot of land, where new

building is constructed, is recorded in the name

of the Education Department. The two glaring

mistakes in law are that, (i) sanction is

obtained for upgradation of existing structure,

but a new building is brought into existence.

(ii) the Gram Panchayat without a right in the

land recorded in the name of Education

Department is taken over without recourse to

law. The consequences are that the village is

3 deprived of the playground and in the name of

upgrading infrastructure, a new building is

brought into existence. The above is the gist of

the case of the Writ Petitioner and accepted by

the Impugned Judgment. The Appellant could not

establish that the findings recorded in the

Judgment impugned warrant the interference of

this Court. We are not in detail referring to

the stand of the Appellant for good reasons.

Another reason for being brief on the

introductory circumstances is that during the

pendency of the SLP, a few developments ex-post

facto remedying partially the arbitrary exercise

of power by the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari

have been taken up and completed. These

developments are noted in the following paras.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant informs the Court that by the

Construction of the Gram Panchayat building, the

4 land standing in the Education Department's name

is no doubt taken over. The comfort of a

playground is also denied to the school-going

children and the villagers. Without a challenge

to the findings in the Judgment under Appeal, he

suggests that the Court may take note of

subsequent developments substantially remedy the

grievance canvassed in the Writ Petition and

pass orders as are deemed necessary.

6. The Counsel appearing for the First

Respondent does not dispute that the playground

is earmarked and made available for the school

children of `. He argues that still the principal

grievance of demolishing a structure raised in

contravention of approvals must be examined by

this Court. We have also heard the Learned

Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan. On

instructions, we are informed that the inquiry,

as directed by the High Court, is underway and

5 will be expeditiously completed. For the view we

take and for proper appreciation, a few of the

findings we are confirming by this Judgment are

excerpted,

“the Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra which exists in the land of the playground. However, the Appellant too was not in a position to dispute the fact that as per the proposal (Annexure-5), the technical sanction (Annexure-6), the financial sanction (Annexure-7), and the work order (Annexure-

8), the approval was made for upgradation of the infrastructure of the old Gram Panchayat Bhawan and none of these documents indicates that a new Panchayat Bhawan would be constructed. Thus, the respondents have also not offered any justification whatsoever for the construction of the new Panchayat Bhawan when the existing building was constructed just ten years ago and there is no such information that the said building is not suitable for the Panchayat activities or that there are any such deficiencies in the said building which can render it unfit for use.

The fact regarding the construction of the new Panchayat Bhawan being without sanction and that the location of the site is a playground is admitted. In the reply filed to the writ petition, the State Government has taken a plea that the writ petition has been filed at a highly belated stage.

In wake of the above facts, we feel that inquiry deserves to be made regarding the conduct of respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, who abused their 6 powers and acted beyond jurisdiction while raising the construction of the new Panchayat Bhawan totally against the approved plan proposal and the sanction. As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the construction of the disputed building on the land earmarked/reserved as a playground is illegal and contrary to the Panchayat’s proposal, technical sanction and the financial sanction, as well as the work order and hence, the same, has to be demolished at the cost and responsibility of the respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Longewala and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Longewala”.

7. The above excerpts from the Impugned Judgment

indicate that the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari/

Respondent No. 5, have not discharged the

official function or duty in the manner expected

of them or conforming to the local laws.

Therefore, the conclusions in the impugned Order

are certainly warranted and have been rightly

rendered in the Judgment impugned. Having

observed, as indicated above, the appeal must

fail. In the case, we are persuaded by the

argument for the Senior Counsel for Appellant

that the subsequent developments, avoiding waste

7 of public money material etc., are taken note of

by this Court, and directions proportional to

the subsequent developments, are issued.

8. Before considering the extent to which we can

modify the directions, we notice that

constructing a building in a playground,

particularly on a plot of land standing in the

name of the Education Department and without

administrative sanction, is of grave concern and

illegal. Gram Panchayat should represent the

public interest and not occupy vacant places,

parks, and grounds for its infrastructure

projects. In a given case, if absolute necessity

is made out for a change of user of any of the

amenities/ open spaces, Gram Panchayat shall and

should comply with the requirements of the law.

The failure of duty and fixing of responsibility

are matters of inquiry; therefore, we do not

dwell on these matters more than the view already

8 expressed. Keeping in perspective the admitted

position viz a Playground is earmarked for

school children, demolition of a building

constructed is avoidable. The directions issued

in Para VI of the Judgment under appeal are

substituted by the following direction,

(i) The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent No. 2 Vikas Adhikari and respondent No. 4 Sarpanch and ensure completion of enquiry without further loss of time.

(ii) The State of Rajasthan/ Respondent No. 4 is directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-, to the credit of the school in Longewala

village, within four weeks from receipt of the Order. The school shall utilize the amount so deposited for upgrading facilities in the school. The Competent Authority considers the need and requirements of girl students enrolled in the school while providing 9 upgradation facilities. The detailed proposal plan for utilization of Rs. 10,00,000/-, is submitted to the District Collector, and on approval, the works are carried out.

(iii) The Competent Authority shall conclude the enquiry directed against the Appellant and Vikas Adhikari Respondent No. 2 within four months from today.

(iv) The State Government/ Respondent No. 4 is directed to recover Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited in terms of direction No. (ii), from persons found guilty of arbitrary exercise of power and in such proportion within six months from today.

(v) The District Administration ensures that the playground now

earmarked at Longewala shall continue to serve the purpose of the playground.

(vi) The Impugned Judgment is modified to the limited extent indicated above,

10 and accordingly, the Civil Appeal is allowed in part.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 621 OF 2023

For the view we have taken in the Civil

Appeal, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

................J. [SANJIV KHANNA]

................J. [S.V.N. BHATTI]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST, 18 2023.

11