Civil Writ Petition No. 6755 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6755 of 1992 Date of decision : 29.04.2011 Risal Singh ....Petitioner V/s Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panipat and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TIWARI Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shailini Attri, DAG Haryana. AJAY TIWARI J. (ORAL) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged notice/order passed imposing a liability of `3,21,075/- to him for having allegedly selling land belonging to Panchayat. Learned counsel has argued that the land was described as Jumla Mushtrka Malkan Wa Digar Hakdaran and the possession of the petitioner was reflected from the year 1966-67 and he had sold his land in his capacity as right holder. Apart from this learned counsel has further argued that notice was beyond the limitation prescribed by the statue. In this connection Section 105(4) of the Gram Panchayat Act 1952 is as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this section no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of 6 years from the occurrence of the loss, wastage or mis-application, or after the Civil Writ Petition No. 6755 of 1992 2 expiry of 2 years from his ceasing to be member, whichever is earlier.” Admittedly, the petitioner demitted office as Sarpanch on 08.08.1988 and admittedly notice was issued to him on 13.11.1990. In the written statement the defence taken is that inquiry has been initiated prior to enforcement of Section 105(4) of the 1952 Act (supra). However, in my considered opinion Section 105(4) of the Act specifically mentions notice and no initiation of the inquiry. In this view of the matter it has to be held that the notice being beyond the period of two years mentioned in the statue was ineffective. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set- aside. April 29, 2011 (AJAY TIWARI) Ajay JUDGE