Gram Panchayat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding obstruction of paths over private property.

The respondent filed a complaint with the Gram Panchayat regarding an alleged obstruction of a path on the petitioner’s private property.

On 13.01.2015, Gram Panchayat Kuddi ordered the path to be opened to the public.

Following this, the respondent filed an execution application under Section 71 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, before the Civil Judge, Bilaspur.

On 07.01.2020, the Executing Court issued a warrant of attachment against the petitioner’s property and directed him to unblock the path, noting that the Panchayat's order had attained finality as it was not appealed.

The petitioner challenged this order via a revision petition, arguing that the Gram Panchayat lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over private property and that the proceedings were vitiated by the death of a co-party.

1. Whether the Gram Panchayat has the jurisdiction under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, to adjudicate matters involving the obstruction of a path situated on private property.

2. Whether an order passed by an authority inherently lacking jurisdiction can be executed by a Civil Court, regardless of whether the original order was challenged in appeal.

Section 41 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which restricts the Gram Panchayat's civil jurisdiction to specific suits involving cattle trespass, movable property, or small monetary claims, and notably excludes disputes over immovable property.

Section 58 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which outlines matters cognizable only by Revenue Courts.

The Supreme Court precedent in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory establishes that a decree passed by a forum lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and its execution cannot be sustained.

The Supreme Court precedent in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana establishing that the defect of lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or inaction.

The court reasoned that the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat is strictly statutory and limited by Section 41 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Since the dispute concerned a path on private land, it did not fall under any of the categories (a) through (e) of Section 41(1).

The court observed that the Gram Panchayat failed to follow the evidentiary procedures required by Section 60 and essentially conducted summary proceedings on a matter that should have been adjudicated by a Civil Court.

Applying the principle of coram non judice, the court held that because the Gram Panchayat lacked the subject-matter jurisdiction, its order was a nullity.

The court concluded that even though the petitioner did not appeal the order under Section 67, the Executing Court committed a grave illegality by attempting to enforce a void order through property attachment.

The Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the Executing Court dated 07.01.2020, which issued a warrant of attachment and directed the unblocking of the path, was quashed and set aside.