CWP No. 2117 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2117 of 2007 Date of decision: 9.2.2007 Sarup Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sarup Singh who asserts that Devinder Singh respondent 3 was a lessee of Gram Panchayat's land and was ineligible to contest the election to the Panchayat of Badh Malik. Sarup Singh alongwith Morari Lal, Surinder and Devinder Singh-respondent 3 had filed nomination papers, for election to Sarpanch of the Panchayat, on March 18/19, 2005. April 9, 2005 was the date for withdrawal of nomination, Morari Lal and Surinder withdrew their candidatures. The petitioner now remained the solitary candidate for being elected as Sarpanch as Devinder Singh was ineligible to contest the election. However, Devinder Singh's nomination was accepted and in the election held on April 9, 2005, Devinder Singh was elected Sarpanch. CWP No. 2117 of 2007 2 On May 2, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition to challenge the election of Devinder Singh. The main ground taken in the petition was that Devinder Singh stood disqualified as he was lessee of panchayat land. Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sonepat conducted an inquiry and came to the conclusion that, as per resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Devinder Singh was indeed a lessee. No effort was made by the respondents for obtaining the cancellation of the lease from the Competent Authority (DDPO), therefore, Devinder Singh continued to remain a lessee of the Panchayat and the lease was subsisting. The inquiry report was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, therefore, no action was taken against Devinder Singh. This led Sarup Singh to file Civil Writ Petition No. 7483 of 2006 which was decided on May 16, 2006 with a direction that Sarup Singh's representation be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner. Resultantly, the Deputy Commissioner on August 25, 2006, after careful examination of the inquiry report and other documents available on the file, reached to the conclusion that Devinder Singh indeed had taken the land on lease but he had surrendered the lease on February 26, 2005 much before the election. Therefore, Sarup Singh's complaint was filed. The appeal filed by Sarup Singh before the Financial Commissioner under Section 177 (2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was dismissed on December 19, 2006 and this driven him to file the present writ petition. The authorities below have given a categoric finding that Devinder Singh had surrendered the lease before the election. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, power of cancellation of lease vested with the District Development and Panchayat Officer in terms of Section CWP No. 2117 of 2007 3 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the lessee could not escape the liability under lease by simply posting a letter to the Panchayat surrendering the lease. We feel that the learned counsel's arguments are somewhat mis- placed. Section 10-A of the Act operates only if the lease needs to be cancelled for any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10- A of the Act. The grounds for cancellation are--if lease, contract or agreement has been entered into in contravention of any provisions of the Act or the rules made therein or has been entered as a result of fraud, concealment of facts or is detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat. The present is a case of surrender of lease before the period was over. It is not a case of cancellation of lease under Section 10-A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no requirement to send the lease for cancellation to DDPO and consequently, the elected Sarpanch had not occurred any disqualification as the lease had been voluntarily surrendered by him before the election process had begun. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 9.2.2007 (AJAI LAMBA) prem JUDGE