CWP No. 19678 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 19678 of 2010 Date of decision: January 19,2011 Suresh Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. N.P.S.Mann, Advocate for respondent No.5 ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of supplementary election of panchayat, petitioner Suresh Kumar son of Mihan Singh was duly declared elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat of village Bhullan, in view of provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). His name was duly notified as such vide notification dated 22.9.2009(Annexure P-2). Subsequently, petitioner was stated to have been duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of the village. 2. Complainant Suresh Kumar son of Hari Singh, (respondent No.5), filed a complaint (Annexure P-3) against the petitioner, for taking stern action against him, as he was stated to be in illegal possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. The (District Development and Panchayat Officer (D.D.P.O.) found the petitioner guilty of charges alleged against him in the preliminary inquiry, vide CWP No. 19678 of 2010 2 report dated 9.12.2009(Annexure P-4). 3. In the wake of report Annexure P-4, Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (Respondent No.2) marked the regular inquiry to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development)-(respondent No.3), who again found the petitioner guilty of illegal possession of Khasra No.142/4 of Gram Panchayat by means of report dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P-5) 4. Taking cognizance of the report (Annexure P-5), Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (Respondent No.2) removed the petitioner Suresh Kumar from the post of Sarpanch, under Section 20(1) of the Act and further restrained him to take part in the election for five years, by virtue of impugned order dated 20.5.2010. (Annexure P-6 ). 5. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-6, the petitioner filed the appeal (Annexure P-7), which was dismissed as well, by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab-(respondent No.1), vide impugned order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P-8). 6. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter. To my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 8. As is evident from the record that complainant-respondent No.5 moved a vague complaint (Annexure P-3) that petitioner is in illegal possession over the panchayat land and stern action be taken against him. No Khasra number or identification of such property is mentioned in it. During the course of inquiry by the Divisional Deputy Director, the petitioner was charged to be in illegal possession over the land bearing Khasra No.142. On the other hand, the petitioner stoutly denied the same and claimed that his father has constructed CWP No. 19678 of 2010 3 the old house on his own land bearing Khasra No.143. The alleged demarcation report was stated to be wrong and prepared at his back. 9. The perusal of the report of DDPO (Annexure P-4) would reveal that Manohar Lal, Patwari Halqa in his statement has stated that as per jamabandi for the year 2005-2006, the land bearing Khasra No. 142, is shown as “gair mumkin rasta” and the same is owned by the Provincial Government. The passage is being used as share-am rasta and no body/ person has any illegal possession over this passage. On the contrary as per jamabandi for the year 2005-2006, the land bearing Khasra No. 143, where house of the petitioner is situated was owned and possessed by Mihan Singh son of Mooman Singh (father of the petitioner). This very important aspect of the matter was ignored by the authorities with impunity and it was vaguely observed that petitioner could not produce any evidence in order to show that he is not in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The impugned report of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) lacks clarity in this relevant connection and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have illegally removed the Sarpanch on the basis of such vague and illegal report (Annexure P-5). 10. As indicated earlier as per the revenue record, (jamabandi for the year 2005-2006) produced by Manohar Lal Patwari, to which presumption of truth is attached, the land bearing Khasra No. 142 does not belong to gram panchayat. It was shown as gair mumkin rasta and owned by the Provincial Government (not shamlat). He has categorically stated that no body/any person is in illegal possession over this passage. According to revenue record, the land bearing Khasra No. 143 is owned by Mihan Singh son of Mooman Singh father of the petitioner, which is in consonance with the stand of the petitioner that his father has constructed an old house on his own land bearing Khasra No. 143. Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 has considered this vital aspect of the matter/evidence. To me, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch, without any legal basis and in a routine fashion. The Sarpanch cannot possibly be removed except on the grounds mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. CWP No. 19678 of 2010 4 In order to remove the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, to come to a definite conclusion that petitioner himself is in actual illegal possession of the shamlat land and his action falls within the four corners of the grounds of removal as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act and not otherwise. This is totally lacking in the present case. Therefore, to me, the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-8) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, and without commenting further any thing on merits lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing, the writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-8) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to ascertain that the petitioner is actually in illegal possession of the shamlat land and his action squarely falls within the ambit of grounds of removal, after affording adequate opportunity to the parties and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed herein above,will in any way reflect on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition. January 19,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No