Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1645 (ALL)

RAMU MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-07-11

ANIL KUMAR, UMA NATH SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri R.K. Chaudhary and Km. Madhulika Yadav on behalf of respondents. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that in District Kheri there is a village Panchayat Dulhapur Chaubey, Block Mohammadi which consists of four villages namely Dulhapur Chaubey, Koelajar, Korehan & Rajwapur (hereinafter referred as Panchayat). 3. As per the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, village Dulhapur Chaubey is the largest village in terms of the population in the Panchayat and during the consolidation proceedings by the Competent Authority, land having Gata No. 102/2 with area 0.024 Hectare on road side was reserved for Panchayat Ghar now known as Village Panchayat Secretariate Bhawan (hereinafter referred as ‘Bhawan’). 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that State Government of Uttar Pradesh has taken a decision on 19.3.2011 for construction of Bhawan in village Panchayat in every district, throughout the State. In pursuance to the same, a decision has been taken by Gram Sabha by a resolution passed on 30.5.2011 for construction of Bhawan on the land recorded as Gata Nos. 121 and 122 situated in village Koelajar, District Kheri. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said decision taken by respondent No. 6/Gaon Sabha Dulhapur Chaubey, Block Mohammadi, District Kheri, is illegal and arbitrary in nature, as the land available in village Dulhapur Chaubey at Gata No. 102/2 having area 0.024 Hectare is most suitable for construction of Panchayat Bhawan as this village is the largest in terms of the population. Thus, there is no justification or reason for passing a resolution dated 30.5.2011 by respondent No. 6 to construct the Bhawan at Gata Nos. 121 and 122 situated in village Koelajar, District Kheri. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 6. Sri R.K. Chaudhary and Smt. Madhulika Yadav learned counsel appearing for respondents on the basis of instruction received by them submit that in the instant case, the decision was taken to construct the Bhawan in the village Panchayat Koelajar, District Kheri because the land available there at Gata Nos. 121 and 122 is much more in area in comparison to land available in village Dulhapur Chaubey. 121 and 122 is much more in area in comparison to land available in village Dulhapur Chaubey. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid fact a resolution dated 30.5.2011 was passed by the Gram Sabha for construction of Bhawan which is now construct uptill plinth level, hence the present writ petition filed by petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 8. As per undisputed facts, in view of the Government Order dated 19.3.2011 to construct Panchayat Secretariat Bhawans’, in each Panchayat in every district, in the instant case also, the decision was taken to construct the same at Gata Nos. 121 and 122 in Village Koelajar and a resolution dated 30.5.2011 was passed by Gaon Sabha Dulhapur Chaubey, Block Mohammadi, District Kheri/respondent No. 6 as the area for construction of Bhawan at that place is more in comparison to the land available at Gata No. 102/2 situated in Village Dulhapur Chaubey in the same village Panchayat. 9. Further, the said decision is perfectly valid as it is settled proposition of law that a decision taken by an Authority can be struck down only when it is arbitrary and its invalidation would depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 10. The said two conditions do not find place in the instant case. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others v. M/s. Gopi Nath & Sons and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 312, has held as under : “8. But here what was assailed was the correctness of findings as if before an appellate forum. Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.” 11. In State of U.P. v. Committee of Management of S.K.M. Inter College, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 535, Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled as : “10. It is settled law that the High Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not like an appellate authority to consider the dispute. It has to see whether the impugned order is based on records or whether the authorities have applied their own mind to the relevant facts.” (See also Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 439 ) 12. Applying the above said principle of law which is to be followed by this Court while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any illegality or infirmity on the part of respondent No. 6/Gaon Sabha Dulhapur Chaubey, Block Mohammadi, District Kheri in passing the resolution dated 30.5.2011 for construction of Village Panchayat Secretariat Bhawan at Gata No. 121 & 122 in Village Koelajar, District Kheri. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by petitioner lacks merit and is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————