R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Municipality which was formerly a nagar Panchayat seeks a direction for setting aside the order dated 30th August 1983 passed by the Development Commissioner confirming the decision dated 1st March 1983 of the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha, by which the Resolution No. 63 dated 13th August 1992 passed by the petitioner was set aside. ( 2 ) ON 28-4-1978 the petitioner, when at the time it was a Panchayat, passed resolution No. 23 for constructing new latrines at the same place at which the old latrines were situate on the land in question. An appeal was carried against the resolution under Sec. 290 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and the Appellate authority by its order dated 22nd September 1980 set aside the said Resolution keeping in view the relevant aspects including the opinion of the District Health officer that these latrines were injurious to public health and should be removed. It was noted that though the Government had as far back as on 6th April 1954 consented to removing of these latrines from the public road, and for constructing the latrines elsewhere so that proper hygiene could be maintained, the petitioner had not taken any action of removing these latrines. The Appellate Authority, therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the old latrines and not to construct the new latrines at the same place. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged in Revision Application No. 211 of 1980 by the Panchayat and the Revisional authority by its order dated 27th August 1981 after a detailed consideration of the matter rejected it with a direction that the latrines in question should be immediately removed. That revisional order confirming the appellate order became final. However, once again the petitioner passed a Resolution on 30th August 1982 for putting up new latrines adjoining the same place where the earlier latrines stood. That revisional order confirming the appellate order became final. However, once again the petitioner passed a Resolution on 30th August 1982 for putting up new latrines adjoining the same place where the earlier latrines stood. An appeal was preferred against that Resolution by the respondent No. 1 under Sec. 290 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and the Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and taking note of the fact that despite repeated instructions earlier issued by the higher authorities the petitioner had not removed the old latrines and had resolved to construct new latrines adjoining the same place which action was imporper and illegal on the part of the petitioner, set aside the said Resolution No. 63 dated 13th August 1982 and directed that the new latrines should not be constructed on the disputed place and that they may be constructed at a different place after fixing the site and taking steps for acquisition for such purpose. The petitioner preferred revision Application No. 68 of 1983 against the said appellate order and the revisional Authority after hearing the parties took note of the fact that instructions were earlier given by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities to the petitioner for removing the latrines from the place in question but the petitioner had not taken any action in that regard. It was noted that the petitioner had by Resolution dated 19th April 1982 resolved to remove the latrines and decided to put up vegetable market in the open space. However, thereafter by Resolution No. 63 dated 13th August 1982 it had resolved to put up modern latrines at the same place. The Revisional Authority wondered as to why the Panchayat failed to take action as directed by the order dated 27th August 1991 earlier passed by the revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 211 of 1980. It found that the petitioner did not give any satisfactory explanation for this default. It concluded that the order of the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to remove the latrines from the present place was justified. The Revision Application was, therefore, rejected. It found that the petitioner did not give any satisfactory explanation for this default. It concluded that the order of the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to remove the latrines from the present place was justified. The Revision Application was, therefore, rejected. ( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Panchayat was empowered to pass a Resolution of the nature passed on 13th August 1982 which had the effect of modifying or cancelling its earlier Resolution; which it could legitimately do by a simple majority after a lapse of 3 months of the Resolution in view of the provisions of Sec. 87 of the said Act. It was further contended that every last such Resolution has to be decided on its own merit and not on the ground that the earlier Resolution of the Panchayat was set aside by the Appellate Authority. In short, it was submitted that the Panchayat could override the directions of the appellate Authority by a fresh Resolution. It was also contended that the land was granted for construction of latrines and therefore, the petitioner was justified in again resolving to construct new latrines at the same place at the site of the old latrines. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that while setting aside the earlier Resolution of the Panchayat dated 28th April 1978 by which it had resolved to construct new latrines at the same place at which the old ones stood, the Appellate and the Revisional authorities had by the orders dated 22nd September 1980 and 27th August 1981 given specific directions to the Panchayat to remove the old latrines immediately and not to construct new ones at the same place. Though these direction became final, the Panchayat has chosen to make a fresh Resolution on 13th August 1982 ignoring the directions of its higher authorities. Under Sec. 8 of the Gujarat panchayats Act, 1961 subordination of Panchayats is indicated and it has been specifically provided that a Nagar Panchayat was to function subject to the authority of the District Panchayat. Under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 it is provided that subject to the control of the State Government and the Competent Authority, a Nagar panchayat shall be subordinate to the District Panchayat. Again sub-sec. (4) of sec. Under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 it is provided that subject to the control of the State Government and the Competent Authority, a Nagar panchayat shall be subordinate to the District Panchayat. Again sub-sec. (4) of sec. 8 provides that subject to the control of the State Government and the Competent authority, District Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat and Gram panchayat shall exercise its functions and powers as are provided under the Act. Thus, the scheme of the said Act clearly indicates that Nagar Panchayat is subordinate to the District Panchayat and the State Government. It would, therefore, be bound by the directions issued by the Higher authorities under the provisions of the said act. An order or decision of a Nagar Panchayat affecting any individual or institution is made appealable before the District Panchayat as provided in Sec. 290 (1) of the said Act. The State Government can under Sec. 305 examine the record of the proceedings of any Panchayat for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed and may revise or modify the order as it shall deem just. Therefore, if directions are issued by the Appellate Authority under Sec. 290 or by the Revisional Authority under Sec. 305 to the Nagar Panchayat it is bound to obey those directions and cannot flout them under the guise of passing a fresh Resolution as it is sought to be done in the instant case by the petitioner by passing a fresh Resolution No. 63 dated 13th August 1992. ( 5 ) EVEN if the original grant of land was for constructing latrines, the terms of the grant cannot supersede express provisions of law and the Nagar Panchayat continued to be governed by the provisions of the said Act and therefore, was bound to follow the directions given under the said Act by the Appellate and Revisional authorities. The impugned orders setting aside the fresh Resolution of the Panchayat dated 13th August 1992 and reiterating the directions for removing the existing old latrines in the interest of public hygiene are, therefore, fully justified and cannot be faulted with. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard cannot, therefore, be accepted. The impugned orders setting aside the fresh Resolution of the Panchayat dated 13th August 1992 and reiterating the directions for removing the existing old latrines in the interest of public hygiene are, therefore, fully justified and cannot be faulted with. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard cannot, therefore, be accepted. ( 6 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders would serve the personal interest of the respondent No. 1 who had made the application demanding the land in question. In the petition there is no question regarding the alleged demand of respondent No. 1 raised and hence that aspect does not arise for consideration. The impugned orders have proceeded on the footing that the latrines at the present place cause public hazard and ought to be removed in the interest of public hygiene. There is no indication in any of the impugned orders that the respondent No. 1 should be given the land which was intended for public purpose. Therefore, that aspect cannot be dealt with in this petition. ( 7 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the petition fails and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .