FAO No.5412 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5412 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:18.11.2010. Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. MPS Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the Election Tribunal, Amritsar [for short “Election Tribunal”] by which the election petition filed by respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh challenging the election of Amar Singh (appellant), has been allowed. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat of village Rai in the election held on 26.05.2008. After the election, respondent No.1 filed election petition challenging his election on the ground that the appellant was in unauthorized possession over the Panchayat land, therefore, he was not qualified to contest the election in terms of Section 208(1)(k) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [for short “Act No.9 of 1994]. The election of the appellant was set aside by the learned Election Tribunal holding him to be in unauthorized possession over the Panchayat land. In the present appeal, the only ground taken by the appellant is that the provisions of Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994 is not applicable in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission FAO No.5412 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ***** Act, 1994 [for short “Act No.19 of 1994”]. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi, 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 760, in which the Supreme Court has held that since Act No.19 of 1994 is a subsequent Legislation, therefore, the provisions of Section 11 of the Act No.19 of 1994 would apply and not the provisions of Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994 until and unless the provisions in both the Act are consistent. He submits that the ground of disqualification being in unauthorized possession of the Panchayat land is only provided in Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994 and is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of the Act No.19 of 1994. In view of the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal (supra), the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is meritorious and hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. November 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE