PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 13882 of 2009 Date of decision: September 07, 2009. *** Mangal Singh Panch Versus State of Punjab and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia. *** Present: Shri L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It arises out of a complaint which the petitioner made against respondent No.6 – Resham Singh, a panch of Village Panchayat Sanda Mauja accusing him of unauthorized occupation over a parcel of land measuring 6 Marlas in Khasra Nos. 15/8/1/10. The petitioner's case appears to be that any panch who is in unauthorized occupation of the property belonging to any local authority is in terms of Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 dis-qualified for being a panch. An inquiry conducted into the allegations made by the petitioner however revealed that although respondent No.6 Resham Singh was in occupation of the land in question, the same stood allotted in favour of his nephew Joginder Singh son of Pritam Singh in terms of an allotment made under a resolution of the Panchayat dated November 14, 2008. The inquiry report submitted by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Ferozepur however suggested that the said resolution had been passed in a haste only to protect Resham Singh. Upon consideration of the said report, the Director Rural Development and Panchayat has in terms of an order dated July 07, 2009 dismissed the complaint against respondent No.6 holding that no case was made out for any action against the said respondent. The present petition assails the correctness of that view in public interest. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and having perused the order under challenge, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for our interference in public interest. The allegation that the land in -2- CWP No. 13882 of 2009 question is un-authorizedly held by respondent No.6 does not stand scrutiny in view of the admitted position that the same stands allotted in the name of Joginder Singh son of Pritam Singh who happens to be the nephew of Resham Singh. A reading of the report submitted by the Divisional Deputy Director also suggests that Joginder Singh is currently in occupation of the land allotted in his favour. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allotment made in favour of Joginder Singh was itself untenable as the allottee does not qualify for any such allotment has not impressed us. Whether or not the allotment is good is a matter which ought to be taken in separate proceedings before the competent appellate authority. The dismissal of the complaint filed against respondent No.6 would not prevent any such inquiry being made regarding the validity of the allotment in favour of Joginder Singh. So also if the petitioner alleges Resham Singh to be in continuing possession of the land, it is open to him to seek redress for vacation of the same under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 which provides an effective mechanism for eviction of unauthorized possession over village common lands. Suffice it to to say that both in regard to the validity of the allotment as also action against the alleged unauthorized occupant over the village common land the petitioner ought to follow the remedy available to him under the appropriate statute before the appropriate authorities. There is no room for us to interfere in public interest in the present petition. This writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice September 07, 2009 (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Malik Judge