MUNUND GRAM PANCHAYAT v. STATE — 1991 DIGILAW 356 (GUJ)

S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) HOW a duly constituted Gram Panchayat can thwart the action of the State Government to allot portion of land to rural landless labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes of society by a protracted litigation is best reflected by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Munund Gram Panchayat. The third respondent a registered co-operative society of rural landless Harijan labourers through its Chairman Hemabhai Makwana has with crusaders zeal fought the litigation twice upto the High Court and even upto Supreme Court but in vain. ( 2 ) INDIA is predominantly an agricultural country. According to the 1981 Census nearly 525. 4 million people out of the total population of 685. 14 lived in rural area. Further out of 180. 5 million people who constituted the entire labour force in 1971 about 125. 8 million i. e. 70. 8 per cent of the total work-force were employed in cultivation and agricultural occupations. Agriculture in its broad connotation accounts for approximately fifty per cent of our national income. According to the Central Statistical Organisation the net national product generated in India in 1977-78 was estimated to be Rs. 30621 crores and the number of workers on the land (including land-holders and landless) was 192. 43. But in spite of this agriculture labour occupies the lowest rung of the rural ladder. Social stratification in a village is linked with land and caste which governs status economic power and political influence as much as the level of living which is their consequence. Owner-cultivators with large holdings are at the apex. A major part of the assets in rural areas are concentrated in a few hands. For example in 1971 the top 30% of the rural population claimed nearly 82% of the total assets and within this group the first 10% monopolised as much as 51% of the total assets. On the other hand the lowest 10% per cent possessed a more 0. 1 per cent of the assets and the lower 30% to be counted with a 2% share. The distribution of agricultural holdings the small and marginal farmers who constituted over 70% of the land-holders operated barely 24% of the agriculture land. Agricultural labour is provided mostly by economically and socially backward sections of people viz. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 1 per cent of the assets and the lower 30% to be counted with a 2% share. The distribution of agricultural holdings the small and marginal farmers who constituted over 70% of the land-holders operated barely 24% of the agriculture land. Agricultural labour is provided mostly by economically and socially backward sections of people viz. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The very fact that they have continued deficit budgets prove that they are not gainfully employed. They do not spend lavishly rather they spend in Bihar nearly 90% of their income on food. Poverty is the greatest economic evil in welfare state. Agricultural labour who constitutes about one-fifth of the rural work force is the poorest of the poor in India. Fifty per cent of the agricultural labour households are landless and have no assets base. The landless labourers are suffering from a compounded problem of unemployment low and uncertain income and nutritional deficiencies. ( 3 ) THE position of rural poor and their low income is simply the numerical expression of a series of multiple deprivations that taken together add up to lives that are hardly worth-living. These are people with poor land little and or no land people with not enough work people on inadequate diets people with perpetual illness people without the most basic knowledge and skills to improve their lives. They are people who have been denied the right to develop their full human potentials. Justice Bhagwati summarised the position of rural poor and the constitutional safeguards to remedy unjust inequality in the following words : the large majority of our people live in rural areas and rural labour constitutes about 80% of the labour force. Rural labour is mostly unorganised and subjected to massive exploitation and injustice. The real problem is how to end this exploitation and injustice to unorganised rural labour ? The problems which the rural labour faces are almost entirely problems arising from poverty ignorance and illiteracy. They are symptomatic of feudal traditional status-oriented inegalitarian and economi-cally backward society marked by extreme poverty of large masses of people and intolerable social and economic inequalities. Our Constitution proclaims equality before the law but to the large millions of our people equality before the law has remained merely a myth or an illusion. They are symptomatic of feudal traditional status-oriented inegalitarian and economi-cally backward society marked by extreme poverty of large masses of people and intolerable social and economic inequalities. Our Constitution proclaims equality before the law but to the large millions of our people equality before the law has remained merely a myth or an illusion. There can be no real equality before law unless it is based on social and economic equality but unfortunately in our rural areas paternalism and not egalitarianism is the dominant attitude and a poor man is either your dependent or your enemy but never an independent conscious and assertive individual and hence equality has remained merely a paper declaration. The rural labour is afflicated by stark poverty and one has not to go very far from Delhi in order to see under what inhuman conditions the rural labour lives and works. If only you go to the stone quarries in Faridabad near one of the most popular holiday resorts of the Government of Haryana you will find stone quarry workers living in hovels hardly 4 ft high with roofs made of straw which gives no protection against sun and rain and which one can enter only by going on ones knees and where these poor inhumans live herded together without any wholesome food or clean drinking water and breathe heavily dust-laden air sufficient to infect the lungs with tuberculosis. If you go to the rural areas in some of the States - I need not mention their name you will find landless labourers slaving for their masters from morning till night and receiving a pittance for the work done by them with their soles and bodies mortgaged to their employers. Unfortunately such places abound in some parts of the country and at these places you come face to face with stark naked poverty. Poverty is the greatest injustice from which the poor suffer and it is a source of manifold problems such as ignorance and illiteracy and helplessness and despair which in their turn give birth to innumerable kinds of injustices to the poor. Poverty is the greatest injustice from which the poor suffer and it is a source of manifold problems such as ignorance and illiteracy and helplessness and despair which in their turn give birth to innumerable kinds of injustices to the poor. There is no escape for them from their poverty and its concomitant injustices because the socio-economic institutions which are responsible for perpetuating their poverty are protected by the existing legal system and it is very difficult to change the life conditions of the rural poor and to ensure them social justice within the framework of the existing socio-economic structure. The poor are unable on account of their poverty to effectively shape the decisions which affect their lives. The new development strategy holds that the reduction of relative poverty and inequality is essential if absolute poverty is to be quickly eliminated Social justice does not have to be adjourned to a distant future. Growth and justice are both necessary if subhuman conditions are to be eliminated within any forseeable time-span. Dr. Ambedkar Chairman of the Drafting Committee in his last address to the members of the Assembly unmistakably warned :on the social plane we have in India a society based on the principles of graded inequality which means elevation of some and degradation for others. On the economic plane we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 2 6/01/1950 we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life we shall by reason of our social and economic structure continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life ? If we continue to deny it for long we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the sector of political democracy which this Assembly has so labouriously built up. ( 4 ) IT is thus clear that political democracy is required to be translated into social democracy. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the sector of political democracy which this Assembly has so labouriously built up. ( 4 ) IT is thus clear that political democracy is required to be translated into social democracy. Social democracy means a way of life which recognises liberty equality and fraternity as principles of life. Realising that the land reform measures taken so far have failed to produce the desired results the Central Government has very recently as back as 13/10/1991 asked States to distribute Government wastelands to the landless poor to ameliorate their lot. The move to give away government land to the poor has been conceived after it became absolutely clear that the concept of achieving equitable distribution of land through ceiling laws has woefully failed to meet this objective. On the other hand vast stretches of government waste lands are believed to be available in many States which could be distributed among the landless poor. However there are problems in doing so as well. A sizeable part of such lands is under the occupation of rural rich and other politically influential people. How to combat them ? In order to see that this suppressed and oppressed masses get justice their living conditions with working conditions shall have to be attended. Distributive justice is a step in that direction. The have-nots of the society may feel that they have something of their own to fall back upon. In order to achieve this the State of Gujarat in the present case has taken a step. Something that belongs to the State is sought to be given by the State to these have-nots i. e. landless rural labourers belonging to backward class. A step in the right direction so as to fulfil the constitutional commitment is sought to be thwarted by the duly constituted Gram Panchayat which admits that the land in question initially belonged to the State and was vested in it by the State Government as gauchar land is now claiming to be the absolute owner thereof so as to even deny to the State the right to deal with its own property. The stand taken up by the petitioner-Panchayat is so obnoxious and unhealthy and is so grossly opposed to the constitutional principle of social and distributive justice that it has become necessary for these landless rural labourers to wait for more than 15 years to have it from the State Government. An attempt to distribute its own land to the landless rural labourer made by the State Government is thwarted by the Panchayat prominently ruled by high-class persons (Amins) who do not want to use the said land as gauchar land but who at least want to see that the landless backward class people are not allotted the said parcels of land. From their assertions it becomes clear that they lease out these parcels of land every year to different persons but they have the objections to the said land being granted to these backward class landless labourers. The unjustness of their claim is writ large at every stage of litigation and the details thereof are set out hereinbelow. (I) Munund Gram Panchayat is a duly constituted village Panchayat initially under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1933 and thereafter under Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 and later under Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (II) The said Panchayat was allocated parcels of lands bearing S. No. 683 admeasuring 69 acres and 23 gunthas and S. No. 2496 admeasuring 27 acres and 2 gunthas as gauchar land and since then it was in the possession of said parcels of lands. (III) The said parcels of land was required for the purpose of establishing an Oil-seeds Research Centre by the Director of Agriculture and vide order dated 1 6/05/1961 the said parcels of land came to be transferred to Oil-seeds Research Centre. It may be noted that in fact the Panchayat was desirous of giving the said land for the purpose of Oil-seeds Research Centre to the Director of Agriculture for a nominal amount of Re. 1/- and the sanction of the Collector was obtained in advance and the Collector had given the sanction under certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the nonagricultural permission in respect of said land was to be obtained by the petitioner Panchayat even though the Panchayat was given sanction to give land to the said Research Centre. 1/- and the sanction of the Collector was obtained in advance and the Collector had given the sanction under certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the nonagricultural permission in respect of said land was to be obtained by the petitioner Panchayat even though the Panchayat was given sanction to give land to the said Research Centre. It has been further stipulated that the Panchayat in turn will be able to realise every year lease amount which it was required to pay by way of non-agricultural assessment. The aforesaid condition clearly stipulated that the liability to pay the non-agricultural assessment to remain on the petitioner Panchayat and in fact the Panchayat continued to pay the non-agricultural assessment. The Panchayat was thus not divested of the said land. (IV) After coming into force of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act and establishment of Gujarat Agricultural University the said Research Centre came to be controlled by the Gujarat Agricultural University. On 6/10/1978 the said University in its meetings resolved to return the said parcels of land to petitioner-Panchayat because of transfer of its office to Dantiwada District Banaskantha as the lands were no longer needed by the Agricultural University. In fact the petitioner-Panchayat had also asked the University authorities to return the said lands to the Panchayat. (V) The University also had resolved to give back the parcels of land to the petitioner-Panchayat after recovering the price of wire fencing which was put up by the University and accordingly the amount was determined Rs. 301. 00. The possession was delivered to the Panchayat by the University on 21. (VI) On 22/05/1980 a mutation entry came to be effected in village form No. 6 showing that the land is transferred back to the petitioner-Panchayat. Such entry was not certified. Admittedly Panchayat remained in possession of said parcels of land from 27-2-1979 to 21/01/1981. (VII) On 21/01/1981 the Collector Mehsana passed an order entering the said parcels of lands in the name of the Government as `fallow land in revenue record. (VIII) The petitioner-Panchayat challenged the said order of 2 1/01/1981 passed by the Collector Mehsana by preferring appeal to the Special Secretary Revenue Department State of Gujarat who set aside the said order on 13/03/1981 and remanded the matter to the Collector for passing appropriate order after hearing the petitioner-Panchayat. (VIII) The petitioner-Panchayat challenged the said order of 2 1/01/1981 passed by the Collector Mehsana by preferring appeal to the Special Secretary Revenue Department State of Gujarat who set aside the said order on 13/03/1981 and remanded the matter to the Collector for passing appropriate order after hearing the petitioner-Panchayat. (IX) On 23/11/1981 the Collector Mehsana passed fresh order after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 3- society herein inter alia holding that the land was no longer required as gauchar land by the petitioner- Panchayat and admittedly it was being put to agricultural use by the petitioner-Panchayat by giving the same to third parties on rent for agricultural purposes and therefore the same was required to be resumed as Govt. wasteland. (X) The said order of the Collector Mehsana was challenged by the petitioner- Panchayat by preferring appeal to the Special Secretary Revenue Department who rejected the revisition of the petitioner-Panchayat and confirmed the order of the Collector Mehsana vide order dated 30/01/1982. (XI) Being aggrieved by the orders of the Collector Mehsana as confirmed in revision by the Special Secretary petitioner-Panchayat preferred Special C. A. No. 969/82 in this court wherein the respondent No. 3-society through its Chairman Hemabhai Makwana was also impleaded as party and Justice A. M. Ahmadi (as he then was) passed following order while disposing the said petition on 25/03/1982 : mr. Dave learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that if a representation is received from the petitioner-Panchayat for the grant of part of this land to the Panchayat on the basis that the land is Govt. wasteland the Govt. will consider the said representation on merits provided it is received within 15 days from today i. e. 2 5/03/1962. While doing so the Govt. will also consider the request made by the respondent No. 3-society. In view of the above Mr. Desai withdraws the petition. Rejected as withdrawn. Notice discharged. It is clear that the challenge of the petitioner-Panchayat to the action of the Collector Mehsana resuming the said land as Govt. wasteland was in fact not accepted by the High Court of Gujarat and the petitioner-Panchayat had showed its readiness and willingness to apply to the State Govt. for the grant of a portion of land in question on the basis that the land is Govt. wasteland. In fact petition was rejected as withdrawn. wasteland was in fact not accepted by the High Court of Gujarat and the petitioner-Panchayat had showed its readiness and willingness to apply to the State Govt. for the grant of a portion of land in question on the basis that the land is Govt. wasteland. In fact petition was rejected as withdrawn. (XII) However petitioner-Panchayat thereupon instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 121/82 in the court of Civil Judge (SD) Mehsana challenging the order passed by the Collector dated 23/11/1981 as confirmed by the Special Secretary in revision. The Civil Judge (SD) was pleased to dismiss the said suit on merits by judgment and decree on 30/08/1983 (XIII) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (SD) Mehsana petitioner Panchayat preferred Regular Civil Appeal in the District Court Mehsana and Learned Joint Dist. Judge by judgment and decree dated 18/07/1984 was pleased to allow the said appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and was also further pleased to declare that the order passed by the Collector Mehsana dated 23/11/1981 and confirmed by the Special Secretary on 30th January 1982 were illegal unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and therefore null and void and also further restrained the State Govt. from mutating the said parcels of land in the name of Govt. as a fallow land. (XIV) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by Joint Dist. Judge Mehsana Second Appeal No. 225/84 came to be preferred by the State of Gujarat and Second Appeal No. 237/84 came to be preferred by the Chairman of the respondent No. 3-society. Said two second appeals came to be disposed of by judgment and decree dated 2/09/1985 by R. J. Shah J. who was pleased to dismiss said second appeals and to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court. (XV) It may be stated that at no stage in the Civil Court District Court or at High Court the factum of SCA No. 969/82 having been filed by the petitioner-Panchayat against the order of Collector Mehsana and Spl. Secretary and the order passed by Justice A. M. Ahmed (as he then was) appears to have been brought to the notice of any of the courts. This fact may not assume any importance since there is final judgment and decree by the High Court. Secretary and the order passed by Justice A. M. Ahmed (as he then was) appears to have been brought to the notice of any of the courts. This fact may not assume any importance since there is final judgment and decree by the High Court. (XVI) While dismissing the aforesaid two second appeal in judgment dated 2-9-85 the court mainly considered the controversy as to whether there was surrender of land by the petitioner Panchayat to the State Govt. and as to whether the State Govt. was justified in treating the said land as wasteland vested in the State Govt. The stand of the State Govt. was that Gujarat Agricultural University could not have given back the land to the Panchayat and the Panchayat could not have resumed the said land and that the University was required to give back the land to the State Govt. This court negatived the said contention but at the same time observed as under : it cannot be gainsaid that the State has power under Section 95 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 to resume at any time such lands which have been vested in the Panchayat if the same are required by the Government for any public purpose. It is not the case of the State Government before me and it has not been the case of the State Government before the lower appellate court that the State Government had exercised power under the said Section 96 (4) in respect of the lands in question. It is therefore clear that the present case is not a case of resumption of land by virtue of the exercise of powers under Section 96 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 In the next place there has not been any complaint emanating from the State in that the Panchayat had committed breach of any of the conditions under which the lands has been vested in the Panchayat. The only question that remains to be considered in this connection is as to whether the panchayat had surrendered the lands in question to the Govt. as claimed by the State. From the aforesaid quotation from the said judgment it becomes clear that this could kept open the question of resumption of land U/sec. 96 of Guj. Panchayats Act and it only considered the question as to whether the Panchayat had surrendered the land in question. as claimed by the State. From the aforesaid quotation from the said judgment it becomes clear that this could kept open the question of resumption of land U/sec. 96 of Guj. Panchayats Act and it only considered the question as to whether the Panchayat had surrendered the land in question. (XVII) Based on the aforesaid development the Collector Mehsana issued notice dated 25/12/1985 (Annexure A) to the petitioner- Panchayat calling upon the petitioner Panchayat as to why the said parcels of land in question be not resumed in exercise of powers conferred upon the State Govt. by Sec. 96 (4) of Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961. (XVIII) Petitioner-Panchayat filed this writ petition dated 21-1-1986 and raised contentions which were hitherto never raised. One of the contentions was that the said lands were not vested in the petitioner Panchayat by the State Government and that same were acquired by the petitioner-Panchayat by way of re-sale from Gujarat Agricultural University and therefore they were the property of petitioner-Panchayat to which Sec. 96 (4) cannot apply. (XIX) The Collector Mehsana vide order dated 3/05/1986 ordered resumption of lands in question in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Sec. 96 of the said Act. Since the said land was required for being given to the society of landless Harijan labourers for agricultural purpose especially in view of the fact that though vested as gauchar land same was being not used admittedly by petitioner-society for gauchar purposes and the same was being used for agricultural purpose by giving it to private parties on auction on yearly lease basis. According to Collector Mehsana land was required for public purpose by providing agricultural lands to landless Harijans and therefore the same was required to be resumed from petitioner-Panchayat. (XX) Said order for resumption of land passed by the Collector Mehsana is challenged by the petitioner-Panchayat by preferring revision application to Special Secretary who was pleased to return the papers of revision application on the ground that the revision was not competent inasmuch as the order was passed by the Collector Mehsana in exercise of his powers U/sec. 96 (4) and therefore it was the order of the State Govt. which could not be revised by the Special Secretary. 3 Being aggrieved by said action present petition is filed by petitioner-Panchayat. 4 Mr. 96 (4) and therefore it was the order of the State Govt. which could not be revised by the Special Secretary. 3 Being aggrieved by said action present petition is filed by petitioner-Panchayat. 4 Mr. S. K. Zavari learned Advocate for petitioner-Panchayat has made following submissions to challenge the order of the Collector Mehsana. (I) Lands in question do not answer the description of lands which can be resumed by the State Govt. U/sec. 96 of Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 inasmuch as the lands were re-transferred to Panchayat by Gujarat Agricultural University. No sooner the parcels of lands were transferred by Petitioner-Panchayat to Gujarat Agricultural University the said corporate body became the owner of the said lands and on its being re-purchased by the petitioner-Panchayat from the Gujarat Agricultural University the acquisition of land was independent of the provisions of the said Act and therefore the power U/sec. 96 (4) of the said Act cannot be exercised by the State Govt. (II) In the alternative said parcels of lands came to be acquired by the petitioner- Panchayat by way of purchase from Gujarat Agricultural University and not by the order of vesting of said parcels of lands passed by the State Govt. in petitioner-Panchayat and hence also resort to Sec. 96 of the Act was not permissible. (III) The impugned order passed by the Collector dt. 21-3-91 travels beyond the show-cause notice inasmuch as it is nowhere stated in the show-cause notice as to for which public purpose the land is required and in absence of specification of public purpose in the notice land cannot be resumed for respondent No. 3. No order in favour of respondent No. 3 could have been passed by the Collector Mehsana inasmuch as the respondent No. 3 was not even a registered society on the date when the order was passed and therefore resumption of the parcels of land by the State Govt. cannot be put in public purposes. (IV) Mr. T. A. Makwana who was specially appointed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared on behalf of the State Govt. and defended the action of the resumption of parcels of lands inter alia contending that the ownership of the land was that of the State Govt. and it continued to vest in the State Govt. The Govt. has not ceased to be the owner of the land. 1 and 2 appeared on behalf of the State Govt. and defended the action of the resumption of parcels of lands inter alia contending that the ownership of the land was that of the State Govt. and it continued to vest in the State Govt. The Govt. has not ceased to be the owner of the land. He secondly submitted that even when the transfer of land in favour of Gujarat Agricultural University was sanctioned the same was subjected to certain terms and conditions and such terms and conditions indicate that the petitioner-Panchayat was not divested of its title and in fact the liability to pay the non-agricultural assessment continued with the petitioner-Panchayat. It was therefore not a case of outright sale of land by Panchayat to Gujarat Agricultural University nor was it a case of repurchase of said parcels of land by petitioner-Panchayat from Gujarat Agricultural University. He also referred to the language employed in Section 96 of the said Act and submitted that power conferred upon the State Govt. to resume the parcels of land at any time from Panchayat for any public purpose is very wide and such power should not be restricted especially in the present case when the land is sought to be given to landless rural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class communities and when admittedly the said land is not being put to use for gauchar by petitioner- Panchayat. The third respondent has appeared through Hemabhai Makwana who has appeared in person and has submitted that after a long drawn legal battle members of respondent No. 3-society have got the dream fulfilled and before the land could now be allotted to them the present writ petitioner has denied to them their own land which was the craving of these landless labourers with the result that all the members of third respondent-society have continued to be landless agricultural labourers in most pitiable and miserable condition and the promises of allotment of parcels of land has remained a mirage or a promise of unreality to these poor citizens. In brief he submitted that court should see to it that at least some justice is done to these landless rural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class communities. In brief he submitted that court should see to it that at least some justice is done to these landless rural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class communities. (A) Re-submissions (i) and (ii) : it is the submission of the petitioner Panchayat that the lands in question do not answer the description of the properties mentioned in Section 96 and (4) of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioer-Panchayat that the lands in question were acquired by the petitioner Panchayat by way of re-purchase from the Gujarat Agricultural University and therefore power U/sec. 96 (4) cannot be exercised by the State Govt. (II) In order to apprediate this submission reference is required to be made to relevant part of Section 96 of the said Act. Section 96 (1) reads as under : government may vest certain lands in Panchayats for the purpose of this Act the State Govt. may subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may think fit to impose vest in a Panchayat open sites waste vacant or grazing lands or public roads streets bridges ditches dikes and fences wells river-beds tanks streams lakes nallas canals water-courses trees or any other property in the gram or nagar as the case may be vesting in the Govt. It is clear from the caption of the section or short-title of the section that the section provides for vesting of certain lands in Panchayat by the Govt. Firstly it is to be noted that power is given to the State Govt to vest certain lands in Panchayat for the purpose of this Act. Secondly it goes without saying that the lands belonged to the State Govt. and such lands were to be vested by the State Govt. in Panchayat. Thirdly such vesting is subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Govt. may think fit to impose. Fourthly the State Govt. may vest in a Panchayat open sites bridges ditches dikes and fences wells river-beds tanks streams lakes nallas canals water-courses trees public roads or open sites waste vacant or grazing lands or any other property. The lands in question answer the description of grazing lands when they were originally vested in petitioner-Panchayat. It may be noted that the grazing lands were vested in the petitioner-Panchayat admittedly in exercise of power conferred upon the State Govt. U/sec. The lands in question answer the description of grazing lands when they were originally vested in petitioner-Panchayat. It may be noted that the grazing lands were vested in the petitioner-Panchayat admittedly in exercise of power conferred upon the State Govt. U/sec. 28b of Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1933 hereinafter referred to as Act of 1933. Sec. 28 of Act 33 insofar as is material ran as follows :28 (1) For the purpose of this chapter the State Govt. may subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may think fit to impose vest in a Panchayat open sites waste vacant or grazing lands or public roads and streets wells river-beds tanks trees or any other property in the village vesting in the Govt. THIS provision is in pari materia to Section 96 (1) of present Gujarat Act of 1961. The word vest has a variety of significations depending on the context in which it is used. It may mean transfer of the right to possession of the land or the right to obtain and deal with the land. The context in which Section 96 of the Act finds its place caption of section title of the Chapter read with provisions enacted in Sub-Section (4) of Section 96 and a power of Panchayat to dispose of its property provided by Section 98 support the view that the Legislature intended to denote right to possession of land or the right to obtain and deal with the land. However it is not necessary to express any opinion on this question because in my opinion the submission made by Mr. Zaveri can be answered without finally deciding the meaning of the word vest in Section 96. However it is clear that the Act of 1933 was repealed by Section 185 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 Section 196 of the Act provides that the Panchayat constituted under the Act of 1933 immediately before the date of coming into force of the Act of 1958 shall be deemed to be Panchayat of the respective village and all the properties vesting in the old Panchayat shall from the said date vest in the new Panchayat. Petitioner-Panchayat which was itself constituted under the Act of 1933 came to be reconstituted under the Act of 1958 and the grazing lands vesting in the old Panchayat became vested in the new Panchayat. Petitioner-Panchayat which was itself constituted under the Act of 1933 came to be reconstituted under the Act of 1958 and the grazing lands vesting in the old Panchayat became vested in the new Panchayat. Petitioner-Panchayat duly constituted under Act of 58 continued to use the said parcels of land as grazing lands for the purpose of grazing of cattle subject to conditions on which they were vested by the Govt. Then came the Act of 1961 which by Section 325 Sub-sec. (1) repealed the Act 1958 The Panchayats constituted under the said Act immediately before the said date shall be deemed to be Panchayats of the respective grams and more particularly the petitioner Panchayat came to be reconstituted under Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961 and all the properties vested in the old Panchayat came to be vested in new Panchayat under the new Act. (III) However while making provision for vesting of its properties into Panchayats the Legislature has added Section 96 (4) of the Act which reads as under : where any open site or waste vacant or grazing land vesting in Govt. has been vested by Govt. in a Panchayat whether before or after the commencement of this Act then it shall be lawful for the State Govt. to resume at any time such site or land if it is required by it for any public purpose. Reading Section 325 - Sub.-sec. (2) clause (vi) and Section 96 sub-sec. (4) together it is clear that the vesting of the properties in the new Gram Panchayat under Section 325 sub sec. (2) clause (vi) was subject to the condition that in case any such property was open site or waste vacant or grazing land originally vesting in Govt. but subsequently vested by Govt. in a Panchayat whether constituted under Act of 1933 or under the Act of 1958 the Govt. shall be entitled to resume it at any time if it was required by it for any public purpose. It was a term of vesting of such property in the new Gram Panchayat under Section 325 sub-sec. (2) clause (vi) that it shall be liable to be resumed at any time if the State Govt. required it for any public purpose. (IV) Mr. Zaveri however submits that the said parcels of land were sold by the petitioner-Panchayat to Oil-seeds Research Centre for a nominal amount of Re. (2) clause (vi) that it shall be liable to be resumed at any time if the State Govt. required it for any public purpose. (IV) Mr. Zaveri however submits that the said parcels of land were sold by the petitioner-Panchayat to Oil-seeds Research Centre for a nominal amount of Re. 1/- after obtaining sanction of Collector. The said parcels of land were thereafter acquired by the petitioner Panchayat by way of re-purchase from Gujarat Agricultural University by payment of Rs. 301. 00 and therefore it was fresh acquisition of property by the petitioner-Panchayat from Gujarat Agricultural University and therefore provisions of Section 96 (4) cannot apply to such property which is independently acquired by the petitioner-Panchayat. (V) In my opinion the submission made by Mr. Zaveri is misconceived and illfounded. Firstly this was not the case of the petitioner-Panchayat in the earlier proceedings where action of the State Govt. in entering the said parcels of land in revenue record as Govt. wasteland was challenged by the petitioner- Panchayat. In fact the proceedings are culminated into the order of this court in SCA No. 969/82 (order of A. M. Ahmadi J. as he then was ). The petitioner- Panchayat never put forth the case of the acquisition of property by petitioner- Panchayat. In fact the petitioner Panchayat appears to have agreed before the court to apply to the State Govt. for the grant of part of these parcels of land on the basis that the land is Govt. wasteland and the Govt. pleader appearing on behalf of the State has agreed that on representation being made the same shall be decided by the Govt. This claims therefore put forth for the first time by the petitioner-Panchayat when power of resumption is resorted to by the State Govt. Secondly from the original order dated 16/05/1961 whereby the land came to be transferred to the Oil-seeds Research Centre with the sanction of the Collector it becomes clear that it was not an absolute transfer of ownership by Panchayat to the Centre but it was merely transfer of right of occupation subject to terms and conditions stipulated by the Collector. Reference to the said terms and conditions of the order of 1961 leaves no room for doubt that it was the State Govt. Reference to the said terms and conditions of the order of 1961 leaves no room for doubt that it was the State Govt. which retained control over the property and that there was no transfer of property in the sense of Panchayat totally losing control over the property and Oil-seeds Research Centre becoming absolute owner of the property. One of the conditions was that non-agricultural assessment in respect of said parcels of land was to be paid by the petitioner-Panchayat. It is therefore clear that the petitioner-Panchayat cannot be said to have been divested of said parcels of land nor can it be said that the Gujarat Agricultural University or the Oil-seeds Research Centre became the absolute owner of said parcels of land. Further fact that nominal amount of Re. 1/- was fixed for transfer of possession from the petitioner Panchayat to Gujarat Agricultural University would show that it was nothing but transfer of occupancy rights at the instance of the State Govt. subject to terms and conditions deter mined by the Collector on behalf of State Govt. The petitioner-Panchayat has therefore no say in the matter and it was the State to determine the terms and conditions. It is also per pertinent to note that when the land came to be transferred back to the petitioner-Panchayat Gujarat Agricultural University has addressed various communications to the State Govt. and at the instance of the State Govt. ultimately the land came to be given back to the petitioner-Panchayat. However land was by that time surrounded by compound wall or barbed wire fencing and since the University has expended amount of Rs. 300. 00 approximately towards such barbed wire fancing amount of Rs. 301. 00 was paid by the petitioner-Panchayat to the university and possession was handed over back to the petitioner-Panchayat on 21-2-1979. This would show that actually there was no repurchase of land by the petitioner-Panchayat. In my opinion the question of purchase would not arise because land was never sold by the petitioner-Panchayat to the Gujarat Agricultural University or to the Oil-seeds Research Centre. The transaction was one of transfer of occupancy rights with overall control of the State Govt. This would show that actually there was no repurchase of land by the petitioner-Panchayat. In my opinion the question of purchase would not arise because land was never sold by the petitioner-Panchayat to the Gujarat Agricultural University or to the Oil-seeds Research Centre. The transaction was one of transfer of occupancy rights with overall control of the State Govt. It is important to note that when the land was initially transferred to Oil-seeds Research Centre in 1961 it was subject to sanction and approval by the Collector and on such terms and conditions as were fixed by the Collector. Once again when the land was taken back by the petitioner-Panchayat the State Govt. has directed the Gujarat Agricultural University to approach the petitioner-Panchayat since the land which is vested in petitioner-Panchayat was to be given back to the petitioner-Panchayat and in fact the expenses actually incurred by the Gujarat Agricultural University were paid by the petitioner-Panchayat and nothing more. It was therefore not a case of re-purchase of land by the petitioner Panchayat. The parcels of land which was vested in petitioner-Panchayat and which were divested from it in 1961 to 1978 subject to certain terms and conditions came to be re-vested in petitioner- Panchayat and overall control of the Govt. u/sec 96 (4) continued. Fifthly it is required to be noted that in second appeal filed by the State Govt. in the Gujarat High Court the learned single Judge (R. J. Shah J.) did find that it is open to the State Govt. to resort to power of resumption u/sec. 96 (4) and the petitioner-Panchayat did not Object to such observation. Sixthly in my opinion if Section 96 and (4) is properly construed along with Section 98 (2) it leaves no room for doubt that the vesting of land by Govt. in duly constituted Panchayat is nothing more than transfer of right to possession of land and even when the Panchayat is to transfer or deal with such property previous sanction of the competent authority is required. Therefore when the land was transferred in 1961 it was transferred by the petitioner- Panchayat subject to terms and conditions stipulated by the State Govt. It was not an absolute transfer of property. The condition of payment of non-agricultural assessment by the petitioner-Panchayat militates against the submission of Mr. Therefore when the land was transferred in 1961 it was transferred by the petitioner- Panchayat subject to terms and conditions stipulated by the State Govt. It was not an absolute transfer of property. The condition of payment of non-agricultural assessment by the petitioner-Panchayat militates against the submission of Mr. Zaveri that it was an outright sale by the petitioner-Panchayat to the Oil-seeds Research Centre. Further correspondence at the time of handing over possession of said parcels of land back to petitioner Panchayat between Gujarat Agricultural University on one hand and the State Govt. On the other hand would also show that since the property was vested in petitioner Panchayat Gujarat Agricultural University was required to give back possession to the petitioner-Panchayat and it was not an acquisition of fresh property for consideration by the petitioner- Panchayat. Even for such transfer the Gujarat Agricultural University has consulted the State Govt. and has acted as desired by the State Govt. I therefore do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. Zaveri that the land in question do not answer the description of land which can resumed by the State Govt. because the Gujarat Agricultural University became the owner of the land and the said parcels of land were repurchased by the petitioner-Panchayat from the Gujarat Agricultural University. I also do not find any substance in the submisssion made by Mr. Zaveri that this is a case of fresh acquisition of property by the petitioner-Panchayat and that to such property Section 96 does not apply. Incidentally submission of Mr. Zaveri that the land was being put to agricultural use and therefore it cannot be described as gauchar land and therefore no power of resumption can be exercised cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Section 96 (4) clearly provides that it shall b e lawful for the State Govt. to resume at any time such open site or waste vacant or grazing land which has been vested by it in Panchayat. Therefore if the land when vested by State Govt. in Panchayat was grazing land it could be resumed at any time for public purpose. The fact that Panchayat is not using the same as grazing land should make any difference. Therefore if the land when vested by State Govt. in Panchayat was grazing land it could be resumed at any time for public purpose. The fact that Panchayat is not using the same as grazing land should make any difference. In my opinion such change of user by petitioner Panchayat may amount to breach of the terms and conditions subject to which grant was made and State is even otherwise entitled to resume the land U/sec. 98 (1 ). In this case resumption is for public purpose viz. to provide land to landless labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes. (B) Re-submissions (iii) and (iv) : (i) These submissions of Mr. Zaveri are required to be stated only for the purpose of being rejected. It is no doubt true that the notice issued by the Collector dated 21-3-1981 does not refer to the fact that the land is required by the State Govt. for the public purpose of giving the same to the respondent No. 3-society. However the said facts was known to the petitioner Panchayat. Even in earlier proceedings respondent No. 3-society was also the defendant and has supported the action of the Govt. in taking over the land as wasteland. Petitioner-Panchayat knew that the respondent No. 3-society was claiming the said land for allotment to its members for agricultural purposes and at every stage the respondent No. 3 has appeared opposing the petitioner Panchayat. Therefore simply because no mention is made to the fact that the land is required for allotment to respondent No. 3-society no prejudice is caused to the petitioner-Panchayat inasmuch as it was knowing the fact that the land is required by the State Govt. for the public purpose of allotment to landless persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes for agricultural purposes. Fourth submission has no merit because the respondent No. 3-society is subsequently registered. Even otherwise the objection is absolutely technical inasmuch as the purpose of allotment of lands to Backward Class rural labourers is a public purpose and once the resumption of land is held to be legal how the Govt. distributes the land to the ultimate beneficiary is not a matter of concern of the petitioner Panchayat nor can the just action of the State be invalidated on the ground that the ultimate beneficiary is not a registered society. distributes the land to the ultimate beneficiary is not a matter of concern of the petitioner Panchayat nor can the just action of the State be invalidated on the ground that the ultimate beneficiary is not a registered society. In my opinion if the ultimate beneficiaries are the rural labourers belonging to Backward Class and Scheduled Caste the State is justified in resuming the parcels of land and as held by the learned single Judge of this court in the case of Samadhiyala Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat reported in 84 GLH 905 it is permissible for the State to bring part of gauchar (grazing) land under cultivation to augment the food output and it is also a public purpose to allot land to members of Backward Classes for their personal cultivation. In the present case beneficiaries are the members of respondent No. 3-society who are admittedly the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and who have been making their claim for parcels of land to be self-dependent. They have been working as rural agricultural labourers and since two decades they were fighting for allotment of small parcels of land and petitioner-Panchayat has been constantly resisting their claim. The State Govt. in the instant case was satisfied that the land was not being used for the purpose for which it was given to the petitioner-Panchayat namely as `gauchar land. It was also satisfied that the land was in fact being used for agricultural purposes by renting out the said parcels of land to different persons every year by the petitioner Panchayat. There was therefore breach of terms and conditions subject to which the land was granted to the petitioner- Panchayat The respondent-State was therefore justified in taking action u/sec. 96 (4) of the said Act to resume the land Said resumption is made in accordance with the terms of grant or the law under which the grant is madei therefore do not find any substance in these two submissions of Mr. Zaveri and I hold that the impugned order does not travel beyond the show-cause notice. Petitioner-Panchayat in fact knew that the land was required for allotment to the respondent No. 3-society. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner-Panchayat by non-mention of public purpose in the show-cause notice Petitioner-Panchayat has in fact joined the respondent No. 3-society and or its members in various proceedings. Petitioner-Panchayat in fact knew that the land was required for allotment to the respondent No. 3-society. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner-Panchayat by non-mention of public purpose in the show-cause notice Petitioner-Panchayat has in fact joined the respondent No. 3-society and or its members in various proceedings. Therefore omission to mention or to make reference to respondent No. 3-society in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner-Panchayat and impugned order in this petition therefore cannot be voided on the ground that it has gone beyond the show-cause notice ( 5 ) NO other submission is made by Mr. Zaveri. ( 6 ) IN the result petition fails and rule is therefore discharged with no order as to costs Interim relief stands vacated. The respondent-State Govt. is directed to take immediate action for granting of land to the respondent No. 3-society and to hand over the possession thereof to the respondent No. 3-society without any further loss of time. At this stage Mr. S. K. Zaveri learned Advocate for petitioner-Panchayat requests this court to extend the stay which was already granted during pendency of this petition so as to enable the petitioner to prefer appeal. Stay granted earlier by this court during the pendency of this petition is extended till 25/11/1991. .