F. A. O. No. 6496 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : F. A. O. No. 6496 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 09, 2010 Pawanpreet Singh .... Appellant Vs. Chajju Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Bawa, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 28345-C-II of 2010 : Although stricto senso, sufficient ground for condoning the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is not made out, yet adopting a liberal approach, the application is allowed and delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 28346-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Election petitioner Pawanpreet Singh, having failed before the F. A. O. No. 6496 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Election Tribunal, Patiala, has filed the instant appeal. The appellant, by filing the Election Petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, challenged the election of respondents no.1 to 4 as members of Gram Panchayat Inderpura, District Patiala. The appellant alleged that respondents no.1, 3 and 4 were ineligible to contest the election as they were in illegal and unauthorized possession of maqbooza malkan land at the time of filing of nomination papers. The appellant also alleged that 10 valid votes cast in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of respondent no.1 and if the said 10 votes are counted in favour of the appellant, the votes polled by him would be more than the votes polled by respondent no.2. The appellant accordingly prayed for setting aside the election of respondents no.1 to 4 and also prayed that he i.e. appellant be declared as elected. The election petition was resisted by respondents no.1 to 4. Allegations made by the appellant were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner), Patiala, vide impugned order dated 29.12.2009, dismissed the election petition. Feeling aggrieved, election petitioner has filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that F. A. O. No. 6496 of 2010 (O&M) 3 respondents no.1, 3 and 4 are in illegal and unauthorized possession of maqbooza malkan land and were, therefore, ineligible to contest the election. The contention is completely devoid of substance. Jamabandi produced in evidence by the appellant does not depict that respondents no.1, 3 and 4 are in possession of any land of maqbooza malkan. On the contrary, only father of respondent no.1 was recorded to be in possession of some part of maqbooza malkan land. However, on that basis, even respondent no.1 cannot be held to be ineligible to contest the election. None of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 was himself in possession of any land of maqbooza malkan. Consequently, this ground pleaded by the election petitioner – appellant, to challenge the election of respondents no.1, 3 and 4, is completely frivolous and remains completely unsubstantiated and has been rightly negatived by the Election Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that 10 valid votes polled in his favour were counted in favour of respondent no.1. This contention is also devoid of merit. Firstly, there is no cogent evidence in support of this plea of the appellant. Secondly, appellant's own evidence belies this contention. In one affidavit, the appellant alleged that 10 votes cast in his favour were counted in favour of respondent no.1, whereas in another affidavit, the appellant alleged that 10-12 votes cast in his favour were counted in favour of respondent no.2. Thus, appellant's evidence on this aspect is completely contradictory and unreliable and therefore, has F. A. O. No. 6496 of 2010 (O&M) 4 been rightly discarded by the Election Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid, since the appellant wanted himself to be declared as elected, it was imperative to implead all the contestants/candidates as party to the election petition, but the appellant has not done so. For this added reason as well, the election petition to challenge the election of respondent no.2 and to declare the appellant as elected in place of respondent no.2 cannot be accepted. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the Election Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. November 09, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE