Court quashes Haryana’s notification to include Kalanwali village in municipal limits

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed Haryana’notification dated April 25, 2023, including Kalanwali village area within Kalanwali Municipal Committee limits in Sirsa district. The court held that the move failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and ignored objections from residents, significantly impacting the agrarian character of the village.

The ruling by the division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma is significant as Kalanwali is the largest village in Sirsa. “Owing to some political considerations, some residents of Kalanwali village, approached Krishan Kumar Bedi, political secretary to chief minister, Haryana, and requested that their area of Kalanwali village be included in Kalanwali Municipal Committee. He proceeded to recommend the same to the authorities for takings of further action thereon,” the bench observed

Gram Panchayat Kalanwali and other petitioner contended that contended that objections raised by the residents, as well as resolutions by the gram panchayat, were disregarded, rendering the process arbitrary. The bench asserted the inclusion, undertaken under Section 4 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, had substantial civil consequences, including altering the rural landscape and imposing municipal governance on primarily agricultural areas. Adherence to the principles of natural justice was imperative, the bench observed, while adding that the absence of a personal hearing for residents was a procedural flaw.

The petitioners, led by Gram Panchayat Kalanwali, contended that the inclusion was politically motivated and contravened established guidelines. They argued that objections raised by the residents, as well as resolutions by the gram panchayat, were disregarded, rendering the process arbitrary.

The court distinguished the case from precedents stating that transitions of agrarian gram sabha areas into municipal limits were not involved in those matters. The Bench reiterated that even when statutes did not explicitly mandate a hearing, principles of natural justice were required to be followed if administrative actions led to adverse civil consequences.

In its detailed order, the bench observed ex facie, no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted to the objectors, despite the potential prima facie adverse consequences for the residents of the erstwhile gram sabha areas, whose lands were transitioned into municipal limits.

This was further compounded by the respondents’ acknowledgment of the unnecessary nature of such transitions, as evident from their withdrawal of the earlier notification, subsequent fresh elections, and eventual acquiescence to the necessity of granting personal hearings to the objectors. Allowing the plea, the bench gave liberty to the respondents to re-issue the notification but only after complete adherence to the criteria/guidelines.