CWP No.15783 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15783 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.08.2011 Santokh Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate, for caveator/respondent No.4. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Ms. Naiya Gill, learned counsel appearing for the caveator, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.5.2011 passed by respondent No.1 thereby setting aside the removal order dated 14.2.2011 passed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.4 was directed to be removed from the post of Panch on the ground that he has encroached the Panchayat land and has been directed to be evicted in an eviction proceeding carried out against him under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter CWP No.15783 of 2011 -2- referred to as 'the 1961 Act'). Inter alia brief facts of the present case are that eviction proceedings were initiated against respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the 1961 Act before the Collector/BDPO, Fatehgarh Sahib; vide order dated 12.11.2010 eviction order was passed against respondent No.4 having observed that respondent No.4 is in unauthorized possession of the Panchayat land. Feeling aggrieved by the eviction order dated 12.11.2010, respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which is still pending, however, in an appeal against the eviction order, respondent No.2 has stayed the eviction order while directing the status quo. Meanwhile, respondent No.4 was removed from the post of Panch vide order dated 14.2.2011 having observed that he was found in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land and was directed to be evicted under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, therefore, this is a disqualification for Panch/Sarpanch in view of Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, therefore, respondent No.4 is liable to be removed from the post of Panch under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the removal order dated 14.2.2011, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 30.5.2011 having observed that since stay has been granted by the Appellate Authority against the eviction order dated 12.11.2010 vide order dated 15.12.2010, therefore, removal of respondent No.4 from the post of Panch is not legal and authority shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act if ultimately eviction order is confirmed against respondent No.4. CWP No.15783 of 2011 -3- Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. From the facts, as observed hereinbefore, it is, thus, clear that an eviction proceedings was initiated against respondent No.4 wherein eviction order was passed against respondent No.4 on 12.11.2010. It is also not in dispute that eviction order was challenged by respondent No.4 in an appeal before respondent No.2 wherein on 15.12.2010 stay was granted against eviction order and parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.4 was removed from the post of Panch vide order dated 14.2.2011 on the ground that respondent No.4 was found encroacher over the Panchayat land in an eviction proceeding, which was decided on 12.11.2010. Now sole question remains before this Court is as to whether respondent No.1 ought to have quashed the removal order or should have kept it in abeyance awaiting the final decision in the eviction proceedings pending against respondent No.4 at the appellate stage. Learned counsel for both the parties have fairly stated that instead of quashing the order of removal, respondent No.1 ought to have passed the order keeping the order of removal in abeyance awaiting the final decision in the eviction proceeding against respondent No.4 saying if eviction order is maintained by the higher Courts it would be disqualification against respondent No.4, however, if eviction CWP No.15783 of 2011 -4- proceeding is ultimately dismissed by the higher Courts then there is no question of removing respondent No.4. I find force in the suggestion of learned counsel appearing for the parties. I, therefore, allow this writ petition modifying order dated 30.5.2011 to the effect that removal order passed against respondent No.4 dated 14.2.2011 shall be kept in abeyance awaiting the final outcome of the eviction proceeding pending against respondent No.4 at the appellate stage. It goes without saying if in the eviction proceeding pending against respondent No.4 at the appellate stage ultimately eviction order is passed, order of removal shall be given effect to, however, if eviction proceeding pending against respondent No.4 is dismissed by the Appellate Authority or by the higher Courts then removal order shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that any observation made herein in the body of the judgment is only for the purpose of deciding the present case, it shall not be construed to mean any observation in a pending eviction proceeding, which shall be decided at its own merit in accordance with law. (Alok Singh) Judge August 26, 2011 R.S.