TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f these petitions are taken up from Civil Writ Petition No.20775 of 2010. Sheel Kumar and Harbans lal Salani- petitioners have invoked the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 20.3.2010 (Annexure P6), issued by the Government of Haryana, whereby the administrative boundaries of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon have been extended and the area of the various gram panchayats have been included in the Municipal Limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, the same being violative of principles of natural justice; ultra vires of Article 243-U as well as 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment and also 2-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 as well as Sections 3 & 4 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. It has been averred that vide gazette notification No.18/1/95/2008-3C1 dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P1) the Haryana Government while exercising the powers conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), the Governor of Haryana declared the Municipal Council Gurgaon to be a Corporation known as Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. The G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of various village panchayats namely Ghata, Tigara, Badsbahpur, Begumpur Khatola, Kherki Daula, Sihi, Harsaru, Gadauli Kalan, Basai, Dhawnwapur, Tikampur, Daultabad, Pawla Khusrupur, Chomma Khera etc. in the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon despite the prohibitions imposed vide notifications Annexures P2 to Ex.P5 and directly issued notification dated 20.3.2010 (Annexure P6) which is violative of principle of natural justice, ultra vires of Article 243-U as well as 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment and also 2-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 as well as Sections 3 & 4 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Upon notice the respondent No. 5 filed reply stating therein that the Government of Haryana vide its notification No.18/1/95/2008-3C1 dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P1) declared the area specified in its schedule to be a corporation known as Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. The boundaries of the Corporation were primarily defined on the basis of the Northern Peripheral road and the Southern Peripheral road, the two proposed roads in the Gurgaon Development Plan. Consequently, revenue estates of some villages got bifurcated in two parts i.e. a part o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anomaly of dual governance of Panchayat owned parcels of lands in their parts of the revenue estates which were included in the corporation boundary arose with a potential of engendering queer disputes between two constitutionally mandated Local Governments. Faced with this situation, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon had suggested the government through D.O. letter No.10945 dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure R1) that the boundary of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon should be redefined as soon as possible to certainly include the leftover part of the revenue estate of 12 villages and also of village Pawala Khusrupur and to consider whether or not to include the remaining 5 villages of Table-II in the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. It has been further averred that the Government constituted a committee vide its letter No.53/278 =- 8-3C1 dated 1.1.2010 under the chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.4) for considering the matter of boundaries of corporation. The out come of the meeting proceedings have been recorded as mentioned in Annexures R2 and R3 and perusal of these brought out complete adherence to the guidelines contained in Annexure P4 of the civ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....some villages remained out side the limits of municipal corporation. These villages have been referred to in Table No.I and table II in the preceding paras. Since it was very difficult for the municipal corporation to extend its schemes to the lands left out of the boundaries of those villages and also to govern the villages whose lands have been fallen within the boundary of the municipal corporation, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon vide letter dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure R1) suggested the government to re-define the area of the municipal corporation to include the left over part of the revenue estate of 12 villages and also of village Pawala and Khusrupur and to consider whether or not to include the remaining five villages in the Municipal Corporation Gurgaon. It was also difficult for the Panchayats to govern the areas which had fallen within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. However, it may be mentioned that at the time of issuing notification dated 2.6.2008, as referred to above, no body had raised objection for inclusion of the area of these villages including the petitioners the Municipal Corporation was duly consulted. The petitioners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges had already fallen within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. Either abadi deh(s) or the revenue estate(s), but now this notification has been issued just to facilitate the better governance of the area by the Corporation so that neither the villagers nor the corporation may not have to suffer from any hardship due to ambiguity left in the notification dated 2.6.2008. As regards the powers of the Government for inclusion of the gram panchayat area in the municipal corporation is concerned, similar proposition arose before the Division Bench of this Court in case Bhupinder Singh vs. Union of India 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 594 (DB), wherein the specific question for consideration was whether the constitution of Municipal Corporation or specifying the territorial jurisdiction or area in which Corporation is to function or the declaration or constitution of Notified Area is a legislative power or function and its delegation is unbridled, excessive and without guidelines or policy, which is quintessential for delegation of legislative function. The Division Bench of this Court, in Bhupinder Singh's case (supra) further observed as under :- "29. For the reasons....