• Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (1 of 1994) S. 48 - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) - Section 48 of the 1994 Act provides that the Gram Panchayat shall be subject to such authority and control as the Government may direct to exercise control over a Gram Panchayat - The matter must arise under the 1994 Act and the control shall be as directed by the Government - The State Government cannot in exercise of such powers direct a Panchayat to part with its property - Firstly, the Shamlat land is governed by a special statute i.e. 1961 Act and is not a matter arising under the 1994 Act - Secondly, the Gram Panchayat is subject to such authority and control as the Government may direct - The direction of the Government can be general in nature and not specific in respect of a specific land - Constitution of India, Article 243-G, Part IX, Schedule II. (176) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) - Executive Instructions cannot not be treated at par with Section 7 of the 1994 Act - The non-compliance or deviation from the statutory conditions, might invite the annulment of State action but it may not happen necessarily in the case of non-observance of the executive guidelines which are essentially meant to be kept in view by the authorities in their decision making process re: constitution of a new Gram Panchayat Executive - Instructions. (180) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.   7(1) - Notification(s) Bifurcating the existing Gram Sabha areas - Plea namely, whether the absence of a resolution by the existing Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha would invalidate the decision taken by State Government under Section 7[1] of the Act? - The afore-said plea appears to be totally misdirected and misconceived and must fail. (180) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.   7(1) - Notification(s) bifurcating the existing Gram Sabha areas - True that the decision making process re: establishment of a Gram Panchayat is founded upon the relevant, reasonable and fair considerations with full objectivity and ideally it must address the issues like [i] geographical location of a proposed Gram Panchayat, [ii] the source of income in the event of bifurcation, [iii] whether development works already undertaken will fall within the Sabha Area of one Gram Panchayat only or would be equally distributed, [iv] whether the rights of non-proprietors and other indigenous class of people living in the rural areas are proposed to be protected etc. etc. (180) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.   7(1)(3), 8(1) - Action of bifurcation or creating a new Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act has been held to be legislative function - Before exercising the said power, the Government is not required to issue any notice or to provide hearing to any resident of the village - The requirement for bifurcation/establishment of Gram Panchayats is that minimum population of the area to be separated is 500 and the further requirement is that a resolution in this regard should have been passed by the Gram Panchayat - Both these requirements have been fulfilled in the instant  ease.  (179) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.   9(4) - Reservation of seats of Sarpanch - No  illegality in the procedure followed by the respondents in excluding those Gram Panchayats which were reserved in the elections held in 201 - In fact, the principle of rotation can be meaningful only if the Gram Panchayats which were earlier reserved are exempted in the ensuing elections of 2015 and the benefit of reservation is extended amongst those Gram Panchayats where the posts of Sarpanch were not reserved for Scheduled Castes category in the 2010 elections - The exercise undertaken in this regard is in conformity with the legislative policy of Section 9(4) of the Act. (182) P.L.R.
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.  49 - Petitioner has been Sarpanch of the village for the last 4 years - There is nothing on record to show that he has carried out any development work in the village - In case of default of duties by the Gram Panchayat - Section 49 of the Act can be invoked to appoint any other person to carry out the development work in the village - This court can not accept the argument that even if an elected representative fails to perform his duties - State would have no power to authorise a government official to carry out the task of development in a village. (177) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S.  53(4) - Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra by which the petitioner has been held prima facie guilty of criminal conspiracy - Impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra under Section 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which can be challenged by the petitioner in terms of Section 53(4) of the said Act. (182) P.L.R.
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S. 123(2) - At the time of removal of the President or Vice President by way of `No Confidence Motion - The resolution requires majority of two third of the total number of elected members - Thus there is no role of ex-officio members either in the election or in removal of the President or Vice-President of Zila Parishad - Quorum which is required for resolution to be passed in the meeting convened for considering `No Confidence Motion' is two third of the total number of elected members and not half of the members of the Zila Parishad.  (174) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S. 176 - Inadvertently the father name of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the communication of the oath taking ceremony - No corrigendum can be issued - Only remedy available with petitioner can be a challenge directly before the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (178) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S. 176 - Returning candidate cannot have any cause of action to approach the Election Tribunal for redressal of his grievance Under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - It is only the defeated candidate who can file an election petition before the Tribunal, challenging the election of the returned candidate - Furthermore, as per Section 176 of the 1994 Act, the candidate can approach the Election Tribunal only under two circumstances: (i) if the returned candidate had committed corrupt practice coming within the meaning of Sub-Section (5); or if there were some irregularities or illegalities during the course of counting. (178) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S. 204 - Calling upon the petitioner to remove some encroachment would not, per se, prove that the land on which the encroachment is said to have been made had vested in the Gram Panchayat or was a public place - The proper forum for adjudication, when the title to such a property is disputed, is the civil court and a suit filed specifically for the purpose can certainly be not barred by invoking the provisions of Section 204(2) of 1994 Act. (173) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) S. 205 - A notice need not be served on Gram Panchayat before the institution of a suit or legal proceedings against it. (173) P.L.R.  
  • Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (II of 1994) S. 176(1) - Provisions mandatory - Petitioner to present the election petition in person by election petitioner as the requirement of Act is very clear and the counsel is required to get marked the presence of the election petitioner at the time of presenting the election petition before the Court - Non-compliance of this provision would mean that the election petition was not validly presented and instituted and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected on this short ground. (173) P.L.R.  9