IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.11240 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 5, 2011 AJMER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition is to order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, vide which the revision petition filed by respondent No.4-Charanjit Kaur has been allowed. 2 Respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of Village Dhangrali, Block Morinda, District Ropar. Certain allegations were made against respondent No.4 on the ground that she did not pursue the cases against persons in unauthorised possession of panchayat land and, therefore, had misconducted herself. The defence taken by respondent No.4 is to the effect that after her election, a request was made to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar, for issuance of warrants of possession, Civil Writ Petition No.11240 of 2010 2 for clearance of unauthorised possession. Thereafter, warrants of possession were taken. Before the warrants of possession could be executed, civil court passed orders of stay and, therefore, no action could be taken by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, directing removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch, is against facts. 3 The Financial Commissioner has dealt with the issue in the following manner:- “After hearing arguments of both the parties, it has been concluded that the allegations with respect to removal of illegal encroachments against the Sarpanch pertain to the period before that and the decision in favour of the Gram Panchayat is also prior to that. After her election as Sarpanch, the appellant had requested the District Development & Panchayats Officer, Ropar for issuance of warrants of possession for clearance of unauthorised possessions from the encroachers when proceedings were initiated after obtaining warrants of possession, order of stay was obtained by the occupants from the civil court due to which eviction proceedings had to be kept in abeyance and by filing an application for vacation of stay has continued the proceedings. In this way, the allegation regarding non-removal of illegal encroachments is not proved in any manner. Therefore, dismissal of the appellant from the office is not valid. As such, setting aside the order of dismissal, the appeal is accepted. Order pronounced.” 4 While learned counsel for the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.11240 of 2010 3 (complainant) contends that there was no stay, as would be evident from the documents placed on record with the petition, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that there was a stay and one such order has been placed on record as Annexure R-4/7. 5 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6 A perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, extracted above, indicates that action, indeed, was taken by the official respondents at the instance of respondent No.4. It is not in dispute that the parties, who were allegedly in unauthorised possession of gram panchayat land, went to the civil court. In certain cases, the stay was granted, as pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and, in certain cases, there was no stay. 7 Be that as it may, total inaction on the part of respondent No.4 cannot be alleged. Sarpanch is a person elected at the grass root level in the democracy and the arrangement is not to be disturbed on whimsical grounds. In matters of Panchayat, local politics at the panchayat level always play a part, calling for removal of the Sarpanch or elected representative of the Gram Sabha. In my considered opinion, the Financial Commissioner has taken a positive and pragmatic view, after considering the overall facts situation and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 8 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that in a Civil Writ Petition No.11240 of 2010 4 case where there is no stay, all possible action would be taken positively for getting the gram panchayat land vacated from the encroachers. 9 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. April 5, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?