JUDGMENT 1. - An important question is involved in this writ petition and it is as to whether the State Government has power to exclude some area or some khasra number from one village and include it in another village ? 2. First the facts. In Tehsil Chirawa, district Jhunjhunu there are two villages, namely Noonia Gothda and Ajit Pura. Both the said villages are under different Gram Panchayats; whereas village Noonia Gothda is under Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda which besides the aforesaid village also comprises of four revenue villages, namely Ikhtawarpura, Kanvarpura, Vijaypura and Brijlalpura, the village Ajitpura was under the Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda and besides the said village, Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda also comprises of village, Lamba Gothda, Gothdi, and Ismainpura., The dispute relates to old Khasra No. 8 (new khasra Nos. 10 to 13) measuring 199 bighas 19 biswas which was the `charagah' of village Noonia Gothda under the said Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda and the land was always recorded in the revenue village of Noonia Gothda. The State Government under its order (Annr. 14) dated August 31, 1991., made under Section 3(v) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, the LR Act) ordered that the area of khasra No. 10 measuring O. 11 hectare and khasra No. 11 measuring 25.18 hectare (total 25.29 hectare) of village Noonia Gothda will be excluded from that village and will be included in village Ajitpura. The State Government further said that the areas of the two villages shall thereafter be as under : 1. Noonia Gothda 2. Ajitpura 428.93 hectare 391.08 hectare Before the aforesaid order the area of the above two villages was as under : 1. Noonia Gothda 2. Ajitpura 454.22 hectare 365.79 hectare A writ petition had also been filed in this court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4302/89 Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda V. State and others, in which the order of the State Government was challenged, but a representation was also filed before the State Government and the State Government stayed its order and the writ petition was withdrawn on November 17, 1989 and it was dismissed as withdrawn by this court under its order dated November 17, 1989 (Annr. 18) at page 63 of the rile. The State Government thereafter under its order dated January 23, 1990 (Annr. 18) at page 63 of the rile. The State Government thereafter under its order dated January 23, 1990 (Annr. 19) at page 64-A cancelled its stay order and further ordered that its earlier notification dated August 31, 1989 shall remain as it is. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 3. The challenge to the order/notification dated August 31, 1989 of the State Government under which area of 25.29 hectare of old khasra No. 8 (new khasra No. 10 to 13, and to be more precise khasra Nos. 10 and 11) has been taken out and exluded from village Noonia Gothda and included in the revenue village Ajitpura is on the ground that no power is. vested in the State Government to make the aforesaid order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda that both the revenue villages, Noonia Gothda and Ajitpura have been separate revenue villages since long and the inhabitants of village Ajitpura have no concern whatsoever in so far as old khasra No. 8 measuring 199 bighas 19 biswas which is charagah land is concerned. Village Ajitpura has separate charagah land comprising of various khasra numbers. According to the petitioner Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda had never passed any resolution whatsoever that any portion much less half portion of khasra No. 8 be transferred to village Ajitpura and a fabricated and forged resolution was prepared by Shri Ved Pal Shastri, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda in the name of Shri Nahar Singh former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda resolving that half of the portion of khasra No. 8 be transferred to village Ajitpura and affidavit of Shri Nahar Singh has also been filed. It is also the case of the petitioner Pancyahat, the Tehsildar and other officers are in collusion and the respondent No. 4, Brijender Singh Ola who is son of Shri Sis Ram Ola, the then Minister in the Congress-I Government exerted influence over the Tehsildar and manipulated everything and the report of the Tehsildar was obtained on wrong facts. The population etc. does not justify the exclusion of any part from the area of village Noonia Gothda to village Ajitpura. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the respoi,dents including the Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda under whose area village Ajitpura falls. 5. The population etc. does not justify the exclusion of any part from the area of village Noonia Gothda to village Ajitpura. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the respoi,dents including the Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda under whose area village Ajitpura falls. 5. So far as facts are concerned, there can be no dispute that old khasra No. 8 (new khasra No. 10 to 13) measuring 199 bighas 19 biswas was recorded as charagah in the revenue record of village Noonia Gothda. As said earlier, the question is as to whether the State Government has power to reconstitute village/villages ? It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no power vested in the Government to reconstitute a village. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of LR Act and contends that though the power is vested in the State Government to create new or abolish existing district, sub-divisions, tehsils and sub-tehsils under clause (a) and alter the limits of any of them under clause (b) of Section 16 and no such power is vested in the State Government even by notification in the official gazette to alter the limits of any village or to create new or abolish existing village. According to the learned counsel 'village' has been defined in Section 3(V) of LR Act, but it is only the definition of village and it does not empower the State Government to reconstitute village/villages or to include or exclude any party from the village. As per Section 3(v) of the LR Act, 'village' means the tract of land which has been recognised and recorded, or may hereafter be recognised and recorded to be a village. It will be seen from the aforesaid definition of 'village' that any tract of land which has been recognised and recorded or may be recognised and recorded to be a village shall be village within the meaining of the aforesaid expression. It will be seen from the aforesaid definition of 'village' that any tract of land which has been recognised and recorded or may be recognised and recorded to be a village shall be village within the meaining of the aforesaid expression. Under Section 23(1) of the LR Act the control of all non-judicial matters connected with revenue in the State other than matters connected with settlement is vested in the State Government and therefore it is the State Government which has absolute power to reconstitute village or villages notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific power like Section 16 of the LR Act to create new or abolish existing districts, sub-divisions, tehsils and sub-tehsils and alter the limits of any of them. It is the executive power of the State Government that the villages are to be reconstituted. Even in cases where in exercise of the powers under Section 16 of the LR Act the State Government creates new or abolish existing districts etc., and alter the limits of any of them by notification in the official gazette, what is to be required is that it should be done by issuing notification which should be published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. I am of the opinion that the State Government has absolute power to reconstitute a village. It will not be necessary for the State Government even to invite objections before exercising that power. But it is to be seen whether or not under any provision of law, moreso under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short the Panchayat Act) any procedure was to be followed for exclusion of any area from one village and inclusion of the same in the area of another village and if so, whether in the present case, that procedure has been followed or not ? It will be seen from the definition of 'village' as given in Section 3(V) of the LR Act that not only the tract of land which has been recognised and recorded shall be a village but also such tract of land which may hereafter be recognised and recorded shall be a village. As said earlier, the State Government has power to constitute a village or villages or to alter the limits of any of them. 6. As said earlier, the State Government has power to constitute a village or villages or to alter the limits of any of them. 6. It is to be seen whether or not any provisions of the Panchayat Act is attracted and if so what is its effect ? It has already been said in the earlier part of this order that so far as village Noonia Gothda is concerned, it is a separate Gram Panchayat than the Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda. It has also been said that whereas the village Noonia Gothda is a part of Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda or is within the said Gram Panchayat, village Ajitpura is a part or within the area of Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda. No doubt both the Gram Panchayats are in the same tehsil Chirawa and District Jhunjhunu, but nonetheless they are different Gram Panchayats.Under Section 3 of the Panchayat Act the State Government has power by notification in the official gazette to establish a panchayat for a village or a part of village or a group of villages not included within the limits of a municipality and therefore the two panchayats named above were established for group of villages a reference of which has already been made in the earlier part of this order. Under Section 24 of the Panchayat Act duties of the panchayats have been enumerated and as per that section it is the duty of a Panchayat to make a reasonable provision in regard to all or any of the matters specified in the third Schedule and one of the matters at item-II(e) under the heading sphere of public works is the maintenance and regulation of grazing lands also. Under Section 93 of LR Act the right of grazing on pasturage land shall extend only to the cattle of the village or villages for which such land has been set apart and shall be regulated by the rules made by the State Government and Section 92 of LR Act vests power in the Collector, subject to the general orders of the State Government, to set apart land for any special purpose, including free pasturage of cattle. A look at the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules), which were framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, will show that chapter-II of the Rules has been framed to give effect to the provisions of Clause (28) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which defines 'pasture land'. It will be. seen from a perusal of the relevant rules that while ear-marking agriculture land where no such land has been ear-marked, the village panchayat has to be consulted and regard has to be had to the total number cattle of village and roughly one-half bigha per head of cattle is to be adopted and while doing so not only cattle population of village but its total unoccupied area, the area under cultivation and the demand for land for cultivation is also to be taken into consideration. There is no dispute that old khasra No. 8 (new khasra Nos. 10 to 13) was ear-marked and recorded pasture land or grazing land in the records of right for village Noonia Gothda. In other words the said old khasra No. 8 was the part of not only village Noonia Gothda but also was within the area of Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda and so far revenue record is concerned at no point of time it was shown in the records of rights or any other revenue record including settlement record as either a part of village Ajitpura or Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda. It was also never ear-marked as pasturage land for village Ajitpura and was not shown as having been ear-marked for that village as pasture land, may be, it might also have been jointly used as pasture land for cattle of both the villages, Noonia Gothda and Ajitpura, as alleged by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and other respondents. Though, it is a case of the respondent No. 6 that the resolution was passed by the petitioner Panchayat that out of old khasra No. 8 measuring 199 bighas 19 biswas of village Noonia Gorthda Tehsil Chirawa entered as pasture land 100 bighas of land is being used by the villagers of Ajitpura and they are in possession of it and the Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda will have no objection if the said 100 bighas of land is included in the village Ajitpura, but it is to be seen whether such a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda and a perusal of the i0 7@13 Hkw0v0 {ks=Qy esa la'kks/ku@1989 will show that there is a certificate purported to have been issued on June 4, 1988 by one Hanuman Singh, but it is not mentioned that any such resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda and if so when. The petitioner Panchayat has seriously challenged the fact of any such decision having been taken by the petitioner Panchayat and has come out with a specific case that no such resolution was ever passed and no such any decision was ever taken. It will be seen from another certificate at para 9 of the writ petition that Sarpanch Gram Lamba Gothda, respondent No.6, has forged and fabricated such a resolution in the name of Nahar Singh resolving that half portion of the land of old khasra No. 8 be transferred to village Ajitpura and in fact no such resolution was ever passed and an affidavit of Nahar Singh has been filed by the petitioner. At any rate, it becomes a highly disputed question of fact whether any such resolution was passed by the petitioner Gram Panchayat not objecting to the exclusion of 100 bighas of land from old khasra No. 8 (pasture land) from the petitioner Panchayat and inclusion of the same in the village Ajitpura under another Gram Panchayat. The very fact that the petitioner Panchayat has contested the passing of such resolution and the decision of the State Government in excluding the aforesaid 100 bighas from the petitioner Panchayat and including the same in village Ajitpura goes to show that as alleged by the petitioner it is most likely that no such resolution might have been passed. The very fact that the petitioner Panchayat has contested the passing of such resolution and the decision of the State Government in excluding the aforesaid 100 bighas from the petitioner Panchayat and including the same in village Ajitpura goes to show that as alleged by the petitioner it is most likely that no such resolution might have been passed. Be that as it may, as said earlier, it is a highly disputed question of fact and this court in the absence of any clinching material on record is unable to reach to a positive conclusion that any such resolution as alleged by the respondents was passed by the petitioner Panchayat or not. It has already been said in the earlier part of this order that under the provisions of LR Act, and rules framed under the Tenancy Act so far as pasture land, as defined in Section 5 (28) is concerned, is to be set apart for a village and generally the cattle population is also one of the considerations for setting apart the land for this purpose. Therefore, if at any point of time it is proposed to transfer any part of pasture land from one village or from one Gram Panchayat to another village or Gram Panchayat the minimum requirement is that the opportunity against the proposed transfer as aforesaid of being heard should be afforded to both the Gram Panchayats and this does not appear to have been done in the present case. That apart, as said earlier, two panchayats were established and constituted under Section 3 of the Panchayat Act and as said earlier whereas Village Noonia Gothda and village Ajit Pura are under the different Gram Panchayats and in other words both the villages from part of different Gram Panchayats. Under Section 86 of the Panchayat Act no doubt power is vested in the State Government to include, exclude or transfer any area from one Panchayat circle to another panchayat circle, but under the aforesaid provisions it is necessary that before doing so one month's notice must be published in the prescribed manner in the official gazette. To give effect the provisions of Section 86 of the Panchayat Act rules were framed and they are contained in the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, the 1961 Rules) and the relevant rules are under chapter XVII of the 1961 Rules. To give effect the provisions of Section 86 of the Panchayat Act rules were framed and they are contained in the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, the 1961 Rules) and the relevant rules are under chapter XVII of the 1961 Rules. Before any transfer, inclusion or exclusion takes places, it is necessary that the rules must have been followed. The Rules do not appear to have been followed and the effect of the Government notification, in my opinion, is that so far as 100 bighas of pasture land of old khasra No. 9 (new khasra No. 10 and 11) are concerned, it stands excluded from Gram Panchayat Noonia Gothda and stood included in Gram Panchayat Lamba Gothda and it has been done without following the procedure as aforesaid and it is not in accordance with law. It may be that there is justification for exclusion of some area of old khasra No. 8 from village Noonia Gothda and inclusion of the same in village Ajitpura, and it does appear from the perusal of record and concerned file placed before me for perusal that there is a school of village Ajitpura as well as common cremation ground of both the villages in the same area. So far as other details of the area and villages are concerned, they are as under : S.No. Particulars Village Noonia Gothda Village Lamba Gothda 1. Area 454.22 Hectare 365.79 Hectare 2. Total Number of Khatas 103 115 3. Total Khasra Nos. 390 394 4. Total Pasture land 58.07 Hectare 12.32 Hectare 5. Total Revenue Rs. 4331.61 Rs. 4935.77 6. Total Abadi land 12.47 Hectare 2.97 Hectare 7. Total Population(1981) 1521 535 8. Total cattle population (1988) 573 234 It will therefore be clear from the aforesaid details which have been taken from the file produced before me that the figures may justify for transfer of some portion of land from one village to another or transfer/exclusion/inclusion of some area of khasra No. from one Gram Panchayat to another Gram Panchayat, because so far as geographical situation of the two villages, namely Noonia Gothda and Ajitpura is concerned the inhabited area of village Noonia Gothda is in the South-East of Khasra No. 8 and Ajitpura is in the North of Khasra No. 8. In other words, old khasra No. 8 is adjoining to both the villages. In other words, old khasra No. 8 is adjoining to both the villages. It will further be seen that besides khasra No. 8 in village Noonia Gothda, khasra No. 159 measuring 2.53 hectares, Khasra No. 187 measuring 1.90 hectare, Khasra No. 280 measuring 3.06 hectare are recorded as pasture land and in village Ajitpura Khasra No. 177 measuring 1.03 hectare Khasra No. 184 measuring 2.28 hectare, Khasra No. 215 measuring 0.07 hectare, Khasra No. 245 measuring 8.12 hectare, Khasra No. 287 measuring 0.80 hectare are recorded as Gochar Bhumi and the way for pasture land of Ajitpura is through Khasra No. 8. As said earlier, there may or may not be any justification for transfer/exclusion/inclusion of 100 bighas or more or less than 100 bighas out of old khasra No. 8 from village Noonia Gothda to village Ajitpura as pasture land, but before any part of pasture land which is ear-marked for any village is taken out of that village and included in another village or in the area of another Gram Panchayat the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Panchayat Act to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order should have been followed, which admittedly, have not been followed and on this ground, the order of the State Government cannot be sustained. 7. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition, and set aside the notification/order dated August 31, 1989 (Annr. 14) as well as the order dated January 28, 1991 (Annr. 19). However, it will be open for the State Government to take any fresh action in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******