# Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh reported in

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 919
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17743 of 1997
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sabha-v-ram-karan-singh-reported-in-42013
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri R.K. Chaubey
Sri M.N. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Gaon Sabha Manual Para 131-Memo of
Appeal-presented by D.G.C. (Revenue)-
signed by private person-disclosing only
reason the village Pradhan refused to signheld-illegal-a private person can not be be
substitute of the secretary of Gaon SabhaD.G.C.
Failed
to
discharge
his
duty
properly-provision
of
Para
131
are
mandatory can not be by passed in any
manner.

Held: Para 13

The provisions of Para 131 appear to be
binding and peremptory in nature. The
procedure therein cannot be bypassed or
else it would lead to a chaos. If any person
or villager is allowed to sign documents
the same would be not only inappropriate
but also illegal as such a person will have
no authority to represent a Gaon Sabha.
The said provision cannot be wished off
merely as directory in view of he language
employed therein.
Case law discussed:
1981 RD 1; 1996 AWC 1035; 2007 (2) ALJ
175; 1980 AWC 243; 1983 RD 75; 1976 RD
400; 1965 RD 349

## Text

2 All] Jagdish Pandey V. Addl. Collector(City) and others

919
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17743 of 1997

Jagdish Pandey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector(City) and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Salil Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Chaubey
Sri M.N. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Gaon Sabha Manual Para 131-Memo of
Appeal-presented by D.G.C. (Revenue)-
signed by private person-disclosing only
reason the village Pradhan refused to signheld-illegal-a private person can not be be
substitute of the secretary of Gaon SabhaD.G.C.
Failed
to
discharge
his
duty
properly-provision
of
Para
131
are
mandatory can not be by passed in any
manner.

Held: Para 13

The provisions of Para 131 appear to be
binding and peremptory in nature. The
procedure therein cannot be bypassed or
else it would lead to a chaos. If any person
or villager is allowed to sign documents
the same would be not only inappropriate
but also illegal as such a person will have
no authority to represent a Gaon Sabha.
The said provision cannot be wished off
merely as directory in view of he language
employed therein.
Case law discussed:
1981 RD 1; 1996 AWC 1035; 2007 (2) ALJ
175; 1980 AWC 243; 1983 RD 75; 1976 RD
400; 1965 RD 349
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J. )

1. Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K.
Chaubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.4. The respondent nos. 5
and 6 are collateral of the petitioner, who
have not put any contest. Sri M.N. Singh,
learned counsel has ably assisted the
Court on behalf of respondent no.3.
Learned Standing counsel appears for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The challenge in this petition is to
the order dated 14th March, 1997, passed
by the Additional Collector, Gorakhpur,
in a revision filed by the Gaon Sabha,
respondent no.3 holding, that the memo of
revision as presented was competent, and
that the revision could be entertained even
it was signed by a private person, namely,
respondent no.4. The Revising Authority
relied on the decision in the case of Gaon
Sabha V. Ram Karan Singh reported in
1981 RD 1 to support the said legal
proposition inferred by him.

3. Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the inference so
drawn by the learned Additional Collector
is erroneous in law without considering
the provisions of Paragrah-131 of the
Gaon Sabha Manual as contained in
Chapter-6 thereof, and that a private
person had no authority under law to sign
the memo of revision and get it presented
through the District Government Counsel.
He contends that it has been time and
again held by this Court that the
procedure prescribed in law has to be
followed and that it should have been
done in that manner alone for which
reliance is placed on a Division Bench
Judgement in the case of Babu Ram
Verma V. Sub Divisional Officer and
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

others reported in 1996 AWC 1035,
followed by another Division Bench
judgement
in
the
case
of
Gram
Panchayat, Pusawali Block-Junawai of
etc. Vs. State of U.P. & others reported
in 2007 (2) ALJ 175.

4. He has further relied on the
decision of a learned Single Judge in the
case of Vrindaban and others Vs. Gaon
Sabha Omri Kalan reported in 1980
AWC 243 and the decision in the case of
Gaon Sabha Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation Gyanpur, varanasi and
others reported in 1983 RD 75 to
support his submission.

5. The contention in short is that the
impugned order is unsustainable as it has
totally over looked the law propounded in
the decisions aforesaid and that it has
erroneously
placed
reliance
on
the
judgment in the case of Gaon Sabha Vs.
Ram Karan Singh (Supra) which is not a
direct authority on the proposition that
was to be taken into consideration for
deciding the instant case.

6. Sri Chaubey on the other hand
relying on the same decision in the case of
Gaon Sabha Vs. Ram Karan Singh
(Supra) submits that the answering
respondent no.4 being a villager is
entitled to use the road which is the
subject matter of encroachment and,
therefore, he has every right to contest the
claim on behalf of the Gaon Sabha not
only collectively but also individually. He
contends that the memo of revision was,
therefore, signed in that capacity, moreso,
when the Gram Pradhan has refused to
sign the memo of revision. He further
contends that the revision was signed in
his individual capacity and the District
Government
Counsel
is
entitled
to
represent the Gaon Sabha as held in the
decision which has been relied upon by
the learned Additional Collector. There
being no legal infirmity, a minor
irregularity cannot be fatal for the revision
to be maintainable and hence the
impugned order does not require any
interference.

7. Learned counsel for the Gaon
Sabha Sri M.N. Singh has assisted the
Court by inviting the attention of the
Court to Paragraph131 of the Gaon Sabha
Manaual which is to the following effect:-

"131. Lawyers have been appointed
who
shall
represent
the
Bhumi
Prabhandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) and give it legal advice where
necessary. The Committee shall not
engage any lawyer other than the penal
lawyer appointed. In important cases,
however, special lawyers can be engaged
with the specific provision of the
Collector in writing.

There is a Vakil or Mukhtar in each
tehsil and one civil and one revenue
lawyer at the district headquarters. The
District Government Counsel is incharge
of the whole work.

The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land
Management Committee) requiring the
advice of a lawyer should request the
Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer to
arrange for it.

The chairman of Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti (Land Management Committee)
shall consult the penal lawyer in all cases
in which he is summoned or is impleaded
as defendant.
2 All] Jagdish Pandey V. Addl. Collector(City) and others

921

If in any case the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti (Land Management Committee)
refuse to sign a plaint or to defend a case,
as advised by the panel lawyer or the
special lawyer, if engaged, as the case
may be, or as instructed by the Tahsildar
or the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Lekhpal
as Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak
samiti (Land Management Committee)
shall act for the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti (Land Management Committee)
under orders of the Tahsildar for the
above purpose only."

8. Sri M.N. Singh submits that if the
Land Management Committee or its
authority refuses to sign a plaint on behalf
of the Gaon Sabha or to defend the case as
advised by its counsel then the instructions
have to be obtained from the Tahsildar and
it would be the obligation of the Lekhpal of
the village concerned to sign the memo of
plaint/appeal/revision on behalf of the Gaon
Sabha being the Ex-Officio Secretary of the
Bhumi
Prabandhak
Samiti
(Land
Management Committee). It is, therefore,
contended that the Gaon Sabha has to be
represented appropriately in the manner
prescribed therein and not otherwise. Sri
Singh has invited the attention of the Court
to the decision in the case of Sahdeo V.
Roshal Ali reported in 1976 RD 400 and
in the case of Gaon Sabha Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation (Supra) to
contend that an appropriate authorization is
mandatory and not directory and the
previous view taken by the High Court in
the case of Land Management Committee
V. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad
reported in 1965 RD 349, is no longer
good law. He has invited the attention of the
Court to paragraph-6 of the decision in the
case of Babu Ram (Supra) where the
Division Bench has approved the earlier
decision of Sita Ram's case (Supra) holding
that the provisions of Paragraph-128 of the
Gaon Sabha Manual are mandatory and not
directory. He extends the said arguments in
respect of paragraph-131 of the Gaon Sabha
Manaul and submits that there is a remedy
provided and in view of this, the same has
to be followed and the Gaon Sabha is bound
by the same.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties. The prime issue which requires
consideration is as to whether the memo of
revision that was presented by the District
Government
Counsel
signed
by
the
respondent no.4, was a competent revision
or not.

10. The judgment in the case of Gaon
Sabha Vs. Ram Karan Singh (Supra) on
which reliance has been placed holds that an
appeal filed in terms of Para 128 of the
Gaon Sabha Manaul did not require passing
of a resolution by the Land Management
Committee as a condition precedent and
that the appeal so filed on behalf of the
Gaon Sabha through its counsel was
competent. It was further held that even if a
Vakalatnama had not been executed in
favour of the Gaon Sabha then too even the
empaneled counsel was entitled to represent
the appeal and, therefore, the appeal cannot
be held to be incompetent.

11. In the instant case, the facts are
entirely different as involved in the
decisions aforesaid. Here it is the admitted
case that the memo was not signed by the
Gram Pradhan and that he had, as a matter
of fact, refused to sign the said memo of
revision. The respondent no.4 Sri Komal
was never authorized either by the Gaon
Sabha or by the Land Management
Committee to sign the memo of revision.
The decision, therefore, in the case of Gaon
Sabha Vs. Ram Karan Singh (Supra) does
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

not apply on the facts of the present case as
the same is clearly distinguishable. Learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha Sri M.N. Singh
invited the attention of the Court to the
decision of the Board of Revenue which
though may not be a precedent for the High
Court to follow straightway but is of great
persuasive value. After having threadbare
discussed the provisions of the Gaon Sabha
Manual it was clearly held that the
procedure prescribed for presentation of
such appeals and revisions does not allow
any deviation from the Rules as prescribed
under the Gaon Sabha Manual. If para-131
as relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and by the learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha is applicable then in that view
of the matter there can be no doubt that if
the officials of the Land Management
Committee or the Gram Pradhan has
refused to sign the memo of revision, the
Secretary
of
the
Land
Management
Committee has to carry out the procedure
upon an order to be passed by the Tehsildar.

12. In the instant case, it is admitted
on record that the Gram Pradhan had
refused to sign the memo of revision. On
the contrary, the respondent no.4, Komal in
his individual capacity signed the same. The
respondent no.4 had no authority to do so
and be a substitute of the Lekhpal, who is
enjoined with this duty. Under the
provisions of paragraph-131, the District
Government Counsel ought to have called
upon the Tehsildar to send the Lekhpal for
appropriate signatures in order to file a
memo of revision and that having not been
done, the District Government Counsel
failed to apply the provisions of paragraph131. He could not have made Sri Komal a
substitute in place of the Lekhpal of the
village.

13. The provisions of Para 131 appear
to be binding and peremptory in nature. The
procedure therein cannot be bypassed or
else it would lead to a chaos. If any person
or villager is allowed to sign documents the
same would be not only inappropriate but
also illegal as such a person will have no
authority to represent a Gaon Sabha. The
said provision cannot be wished off merely
as directory in view of he language
employed therein.

14. In view of the aforesaid
conclusions drawn, the order impugned
dated 14th March, 1997 is unsustainable
and is hereby quashed. Consequently the
revision which has been decided by the
order dated 28th April, 1997 was also an
incompetent order and the same is also set
aside.

15. This, however, does not denude
either the Gaon Sabha or the respondent no.
4 to initiate appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law which might be
permissible keeping in view the nature of
the property of the Gaon Sabha.

16. A debate was also canvassed
before the Court in relation to Plot no. 186
which was being claimed by the respondent
no.4 himself. The said issue relating to the
exact plot number and the claim of the
respondent no.4 is not required to go into by
this Court in view of the conclusions made
hereinabove.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. No order as to cost.
---------
2 All] Ramakant Pathak V. State of U.P. and others

923
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 21604 of 2011

Ramakant Pathak

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.N. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482notice under section 110 Cr.P.C. In
Printed and Performa by Magistrate
without application of judicial mindheld-illegal.

Held: Para 4

In 2009 (2) JIC 918, Mahesh Prasad
Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P. this court
has held that notice under Section 110
Cr.P.C. should not be given on printed
proforma and the notice on cyclostyle
proforma is illegal. In the instant case,
also the notice has been given on a
printed proforma/ cyclostyle proforma
wherein name of the noticee, name of
the police station, dates, name of the
village
are
written
by
hand
and
remaining content of the notice is
printed. Such a notice cannot be said to
be in accordance with law and is rather
illegal.
Case law discussed:
2009 (2) JIC 918

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the
State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
with a prayer to quash the notice dated
4.5.2011 issued by Sub Divisional
Magistrate,
Burhanpur,
District-
Azamgarh, under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in
Case No. 25, State of U.P. Vs.
Ramakant.

3. Learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that the notice
under Section 110 Cr.P.C. has been
issued on a printed proforma with the
blanks filled in by hand and there was
no application of mind on the part of the
S.D.M.

4. In 2009 (2) JIC 918, Mahesh
Prasad Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P.
this court has held that notice under
Section 110 Cr.P.C. should not be given
on printed proforma and the notice on
cyclostyle proforma is illegal. In the
instant case, also the notice has been
given on a printed proforma/ cyclostyle
proforma wherein name of the noticee,
name of the police station, dates, name
of the village are written by hand and
remaining content of the notice is
printed. Such a notice cannot be said to
be in accordance with law and is rather
illegal.

5. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
is allowed. Notice dated 4.5.2011 is
quashed.
---------