Skip to content


Gogula Venkanna and ors. Vs. the Panchayat Board, Munagapaka, Represented by the President and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad508; (1943)1MLJ399
AppellantGogula Venkanna and ors.
RespondentThe Panchayat Board, Munagapaka, Represented by the President and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....until the date of reconstitution, the provincial government will be liable and after that date the reconstituted board will, be liable for all the liabilities of the superseded panchayat. the liability in question in each of these two appeals arose under a decree of court which the appellants had obtained against the superseded or dissolved panchayat. the lower courts have, on what they considered to be the intention of the legislature, refused to apply the plain provisions of the section and have restricted the provisions of section 45-b to a case where there are assets of the panchayat in the hands of the provincial government. it is said that otherwise the general tax-payer will suffer great loss and that it could not be the intention of the legislature to take upon itself.....
Judgment:

Somayya, J.

1. These cases seem to be directly covered by the express wording of Section 45-B of the Local Boards Act. This section enacts that if a panchayat is superseded, the Provincial Government shall be subject to all the liabilities of the panchayat as on the date of the dissolution or supersession, and it also says that if the panchayat is later on reconstituted, until the date of reconstitution, the Provincial Government will be liable and after that date the reconstituted board will, be liable for all the liabilities of the superseded panchayat. The liability in question in each of these two appeals arose under a decree of Court which the appellants had obtained against the superseded or dissolved panchayat. The lower Courts have, on what they considered to be the intention of the Legislature, refused to apply the plain provisions of the section and have restricted the provisions of Section 45-b to a case where there are assets of the panchayat in the hands of the Provincial Government. It is said that otherwise the general tax-payer will suffer great loss and that it could not be the intention of the Legislature to take upon itself the liability of paying all the debts of the superseded board. All this is, in my opinion, wholly irrelevant when the wording of the section is clear. Section 45-B lays down expressly that the Provincial Government shall be subject to all the liabilities of the superseded panchayat and this is not made subject to the possession of any assets of the superseded panchayat. If, as stated by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents, a new panchayat has been reconstituted for that village, then under Section 45-8 further execution will proceed against the reconstituted panchayat. But until the date of reconstitution the Provincial Government will be liable.

2. The orders of the lower Courts are reversed and the execution petitions will be taken on file by the first Court and further execution will proceed according to law. The respondents will pay the costs of the appellants in all the Courts. Time for payment three months.

3. Leave to appeal is refused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //