CWP No.19847 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19847 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on :09-11-2010 Gram Panchayat Village Walle Shah Uttar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. M.S.Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is making a grievance against the order dated 20.9.2010. She is Sarpanch of village and apprised the BDPO that the respondent no.5 was in unauthorised occupation of some village land. An inquiry was held in which the finding was returned that the said respondent no.5 is indeed in unauthorised occupation of Panchayat land. On the basis of these, he was suspended. Against this suspension he filed an appeal and while accepting his appeal the Appellate Authority observed as under:- “After hearing both the parties, it is evident that name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the Jamabandi and in the Khasra Girdawari of Rect. No.53 (1-0). If the appellant is in the illegal possession of the Panchayat land then it is the duty of the Sarpanch to file a suit for eviction against him. But the Sarpanch has not do so. It was CWP No.19847 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the duty of the enquiry officer to establish the illegal possession of the appellant on the Panchayat land and what efforts has been made by the Panchayat to vacate the land. The enquiry officer as well as the Director Panchayat has not come to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the appellant has been proved. Under the above circumstances the appellant cannot be suspended from the post of Panch. Therefore, the appeal has been accepted and he is reinstate at the post of Panch.” The cause of the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the finding being returned against respondent no.5 instead of maintaining his suspension, he has been exonerated and this interference is prayed for by virtue of initiation of these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that before proceeding with the matter and to evaluate the grievance of the petitioner, the Court takes suo moto notice of the fact that the petitioner apparently has not performed her duties as a Sarpanch by failing to take legal action of seeking eviction of respondent no.5 unauthorised occupation over the panchayat land. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner being Sarpanch of the village to protect the lands of the village from falling into unauthorised use at the hands of unscrupulous people. Let a direction be issued to respondent no.2 to either himself or through the agency of the competent authority initiate action against the petitioner for having failed to discharge her duties as a Sarpanch. CWP No.19847 of 2010 (O&M) 3 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present petition. Permitted to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. November 09, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge