IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 231 of 2021 Decided on: 19.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Satish Kumar ……….. petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Officer and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5 and 7 to 12. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned orders dated 8.1.2020 and 31.8.2021 i.e. i.e. Annexures P3 & P4, respectively. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned orders and the pleadings appended alongwith the present petition. 3. The genesis of the dispute is a path. In this respect, the wife of the present petitioner got recorded her statement before the Gram Panchayat. The same has been placed on record at page 44 of the paper book i.e. Annexure R-3/3 dated 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 13.6.2010. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the wife of the petitioner had an objection qua a path being used by the villagers, which was passing through the courtyard of the house of the petitioner. The aforesaid passage was being used by the villagers to approach their fields. 4. In terms of the statement recorded, the wife of the petitioner had agreed to give an alternate path from her own land, which was 2 feet, 6 inches in width. The dispute inter se the petitioner, his wife and the villagers arose subsequently in the year 2019, when the petitioner and his wife blocked the alternate path, which had been granted vide Annexure R-3/3 dated 13.6.2010. On account of the aforesaid blockage, the villagers were forced to approach the concerned Executive Magistrate. 5. The executive magistrate in exercise of the powers under Section 133 of Cr.PC initiated proceedings in which an order was passed which is placed on record as Annexure R-3/1 whereby the Executive Magistrate ordered the concerned SHO of the Police Station to ensure removal of blockage. On visiting the spot, the concerned police official informed that the blockage stood removed. The same is evident from Annexure R-3/2 (page 43 of the paper book.). 6. Subsequent to the aforesaid inter se the villagers and the present petitioner, his wife, a dispute with respect to the path mentioned supra once again arose. The villagers thereafter 3 approached the concerned Gram Panchayat, whereupon the Gram Panchayat constituted a Dharmasan. The said Dharmasan so constituted visited the spot on 22.12.2019. It reported that the passage which had been used since times immemorial by the villagers was found to be open on the spot. The Gram Panchayat ordered that the same be kept open. The Gram Panchayat in its impugned order dated 8.1.2020 i.e. Annexure P-3 stated that if in case the petitioner and his wife wanted the path to be changed then they could approach the villagers and post obtaining their consent, the same could be got changed. 7. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the present petitioner approached the SDO Civil. The appeal was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure P-4). The power of the SDO Civil i.e. jurisdiction to hear the same is being examined at the outset herein below. 8. The appeal in the case at hand was filed under Section 12 Sub Section 3 of the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act. (hereinafter for purpose of brevity referred to as the Act) Section 12 is being reproduced for a ready reference:- 12. Power of removal of encroachments and nuisance (1) A Gram Panchayat on receiving a report or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as it thinks fit, may make a conditional order requiring, within a time to be fixed in the order; The owner or the occupier of any building or land- (i) to remove any encroachment on a public street. place or drain; 4 (ii) to close, remove, alter, repair, cleanse, disinfect or put in good order any latrine, urinal, water closet, drain, cesspool or other receptacle for filth, sullage- water. rubbish or refuse or to remove or alter any door or trap or construct any drain for any such latrine, urinal or water closet which opens on to a street, drain or to shut off such latrine, urinal, water closet by a sufficient roof and wall or fence from the view of persons passing by or dwelling in the neighborhood: (iii) to cleanse, repair, cover, fill up, drain off, deepen or to remove water from a private: well, tank, reservoir, pool, pit, ditch, depression or excavation therein which may appear to the Gruur Panchayat to be injurious to health or offensive to the neighborhood; (iv) to remove any litt, dung, night soil, manure or any noxious or offensive matter therefrom and to cleanse the land or building: (b) the owner of any wall or building which is deemed by the Gram Panchayat to be in any way dangerous, to remove or repair such wall or building; (c) the owner or occupier of any building or property to keep his building or property in a sanitary state; (d) the owner of any dog or other animal suffering or reasonably suspected to be suffering from rabbis or which is dangerous, to destroy or confine or cause to be destroyed or confined such dog or animal: (e) the owner or occupier of any agricultural land to destroy harmful weeds from such land: (f) the owner or occupier concerned to reclaim an unhealthy place; (g) the owner or occupier of any building or land to maintain in proper repair the level and surface of any road or street passing in front of the building or through his land: and (h) the owner or person-in-charge of a private water channel to keep it in a state of reasonable repair; or, if he objects so to do, to appear before it, at a time and place to be fixed by the order and to move to have 5 the order set aside or modified in the manner hereinafter provided. If he does not perform such act or appear and show cause, the order shall be made absolute. If he appears and shows cause against the order, the Gram Panchayat shall take evidence and if it is satisfied that order is not reasonable and proper, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case. If it is not so satisfied, the order shall be confirmed or modified as it deems fit. (2) if such act is not performed within the time fixed, the Gram Panchayat may cause it to be performed and may recover the costs of performing it from such person in the prescribed manner. (3) Any person aggrieved by an ortier under sub-section (1) may file an appeal within thirty days of the passing of such order before the Sub-Divisional Officer who after holding such enquiry as he may deem fit, may set aside, modify or confirm the said order and his decision thereon shall be final. 9. Under Section 12 (3) of the Act, appeal can be filed against an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub Section (1) deals with removal of encroachments and nuisance by a owner or the occupier of any building or land. In the case at hand, impugned order dated 8.1.2020 (Annexure P3) passed by the Panchayat is not relatable to any acts of encroachments and nuisance by a owner or the occupier of any building or land mentioned in sub section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Moreover the issue being considered did not pertain to maintenance or proper repair of the level and surface of any road or street passing through the land of the petitioner {dispute not referable to Section 12 (1)g}. Hence the appeal preferred against order dated 8.1.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable. 6 10. Supervisory jurisdiction, is available keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to the high court, "within the bounds of their authority". When a subordinate court/tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, the High Court may step into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Hence in the case at hand the SDO Civil in passing the impugned order dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure P-4) assumed jurisdiction where he had none. 11. Insofar as order dated 8.1.2020 i.e. Annexures P3 passed by the Gram Panchayat is concerned the judicial function and powers of Gram Panchayat are contained in Chapter 4 of the Act. Section 44 excludes the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat with respect to certain suits, Section 44 of the Act is being reproduced here-in-below:- 44. Exclusion of Gram Panchayat jurisdiction. A Gram Panchayat shall have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the following suits:- (a) a suit for a balance of partnership account: (b) a suit for a share or part of a share under intestacy or for a legacy or part of legacy under a will; (c) a suit by or against the State or a public servant for acts done in his official capacity; and (d) a suit by or against a minor, or a person of unsound mind. 12. The dispute inter se the petitioner, his wife and the villagers qua use of the passage was not excluded from the purview of the Gram Panchayat jurisdiction. As has been pointed 7 out supra, dispute inter se the petitioner, his wife and the villagers qua use of the passage had been compromised before the Gram Panchayat on 13.6.2010 (Annexure R-3/3) at the behest of the wife of the petitioner. Power of the Gram Panchayat to compromise is contained in Section 59 of the Act. The same reads as follows:- 59. Compromise. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a Gram Panchayat may decide any civil or revenue dispute arising in its local area and not pending in any court in accordance with any settlement or promise or oath agreed upon by the parties and like-wise decide a case if compoundable. (2) For the removal of doubrs, it is hereby declared that a Gram Panchayat shall exercise the power vested in it under süb-section (1) in respect of such cases, suits or proceedings with reference to which it has power to decide 13. In terms of the compromise, the path being previously used by the villagers was discontinued as the wife of the petitioner had agreed to give an alternate path to the villagers from her own land which was two feet and 6 inches in width. Subsequent thereto, the passage so granted was blocked. Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC were initiated. Blockages placed in the alternate path granted were removed. 14. Thereafter a dispute qua alternate path once again arose. As a result of which, villagers were forced to approach the Gram Panchayat concerned. On an application filed by the villagers, the Gram Panchayat constituted a bench on 8.12.2019. The Bench so constituted visited the spot in the presence of both the parties on 8 22.12.2019. A report was prepared based on the visit. The Gram Panchayat passed the impugned order dated 8.1.2020. Keeping in view the chequered history of the case, the passing of the order by the Gram Panchayat cannot be faulted with especially when previously the wife of the petitioner had approached the Gram Panchayat for resolving the dispute qua the path and therein the matter had been resolved vide Annexure R-3/3 dated 13.6.2010. However, the re-course adopted to challenge, the same is legally impermissible. As has already been stated supra, power exercised by the SDO Civil in passing the impugned order is unsustainable, same cannot be related to the provisions of Section 12 sub Section (1). 15. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 8.1.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Gram Panchayat is up-held, appeal filed there against before the SDO Civil is held to be not maintainable. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 19, 2025 tarun