Panchayati Raj Act Overrides Regional Development Authority Act In Rural Areas: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Demolition Orders

The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant judgment, held that since there is an irreconcilable conflict between the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act and the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, the Panchayati Raj Act must prevail. The Court observed that the inconsistent provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act stand impliedly repealed to the extent they conflict with the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001.A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan was dealing with a batch of writ petitions where the petitioners had purchased parcels of land in Ranchi, constructed new buildings after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, and completed the construction. Several years later, proceedings were initiated against them questioning the legality of the construction on the ground that no prior approval had been obtained from the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA). The RRDA subsequently directed demolition of the building.Background: The petitioners objected to the jurisdiction of the RRDA over the subject property, contending that the building was situated in Village Sidroll, which fell within a Gram Panchayat and therefore could not be governed by the provisions of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act. They argued that, following the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, Regional Development Authorities had been stripped of powers that were now vested in local self-government bodies such as Panchayats and Municipalities.The Court noted that the 73rd Constitutional Amendment significantly expanded the powers and responsibilities of Panchayats. It explained that Panchayats were no longer meant to merely carry out the State Government's policies but were empowered to design and implement their own programmes for economic development and social justice, reflecting their role as the third tier of government representing local interests. The Court specifically referred to “Rural Housing,” listed as Entry 10 in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, and held:“It is well settled that an entry in a schedule must be given the widest possible interpretation, and therefore having regard to such legal position, the term Rural Housing must be interpreted to include the power of sanctioning of building plans in terms of the applicable building bye laws.”The Court recognized a clear conflict between the provisions of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, particularly Section 30, which requires prior permission from the Authority before any land development, and the provisions of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act relating to rural housing. It observed that, under the constitutional scheme, Panchayats are empowered to regulate matters such as sanctioning building maps and construction plans, and that the overlap between the two statutes was “writ large.” The Court held that the two enactments could not be reconciled and, therefore, one had to give way to the other.In holding that the Panchayati Raj Act would prevail, the Court applied the principle that where two legislations conflict, the test is to identify which is the later and more specific enactment. It reiterated the settled principle that a later special law overrides an earlier general law. The Court held:“Therefore, in view of the above position in law, it can safely be inferred that after coming into force of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj and also having regard to objects and purpose of Part IX of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, which are in conflict with the provisions of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act must be held to be imply repealed and to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act… The encroachment by the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act is not incidental; rather is direct and therefore must yield to the provisions of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act. In respect of a particular function, there can only be a single authority exercising the power.”By way of final conclusions, the Court clarified that the Ranchi Regional Development Authority has no jurisdiction to sanction building plans, and there is no requirement to obtain permission under Section 30 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act from the said authority. Accordingly, the structures erected by the petitioner in Village Sidroll without permission from the Ranchi Regional Development Authority cannot be said to be unlawful.Cause Title: R.S. Education Foundation Pvt Ltd and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors Case Number: WP (C) No. 4130 of 2021 Apperance: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Ankit Vishal, Mr. Arpan Mishra, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, and Mr. Kumar Harsh, appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, and Mr. Karbir appeared for the Respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Panchayati Raj Act Overrides Regional Development Authority Act In Rural Areas: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Demolition Orders

Rushil Batra

Tags