^ 16^' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISG/WH : BILASFUR WRIT PETITION N0.5443 of 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ 1\^-"- Dharam Singh, S/o Panchram, aged about 51 years, caste Gond, R/o village Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG). Versus 1. Sub Divisionat Officer (Specified Qfficei), . Dabhra, Dlstt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 2. Block Etoction Officer (Panchayat), Blcck Dabhra, Distt. Jgnjgir-Champa (CG). 3. Rameshwar Singh, S/o Daras Ram, aged about 38 years, Caste Gond, R/o village Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Jai^gir- Champa(CG). , 4. Phool Singh, S/o Guha, Caste Gond, R/o viltage Faraswanl, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 5. Purendra Singh, S/o Narayan Singh, Caste Gond, R/o vlllage Faraswahi, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 6. Gajendra Singh, S/o Sarang Singh, Casta Gond, R/o viliage Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Djstt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). *7. Ramnath, S/o Kumarra, Caste Gond, -R/o vitlage Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 8. Samaru, S/o Patdu, caste Saware, R/o village Khairakala, Tah, pabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 9. Gulab Singh, S/o Kanwal Singh, Caste Gond,. R/o viltage Faraswant,' Tah, Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 10. Santosh, S/o Baran Singh; Caste Gorri, R/o witege Farasvrani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 11. Arun, S/o Majhi, caste Sawara, R/o viltege Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt, Janjgir. Champa (CG). 12. Jaypa Singh, S/oMahasingh, caste Gond, R/o village Faraswrani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 13. Hetram, S/o C»ialukRam, Caste Sawara, R/oviltage Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). •2-- !'-^ 14. Ghasiya, Sfo eraha, caste Sawara, R/o village Khairakala, Tah. Dabhra, Dis.ft. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 15. Firatram Baghel, Head Master, Akalsara, Ptthaseen Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Faraswani, Booth No.57, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 16. K.C. Dewangan, Khand Samanvayak, .Jaijaipur, <. Pithaseen Adhikan, Gram Panchayat Faraswani, Booth No.58, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). ; 17. Roodra Pal Singh, Head Master Bhrthiya, Pittiaseen Adhikari, Gram Pancha^t Faraswani, Tah. Dabhra, Distt; Jar(jgir- Champa (CG). 18. Battu Ram Sonwani, UDT Bhyothfya, Pithaseen Adhikari, Panchayat Chunav, Gram Panchayat Faraswani, Ashrit Gram Khairakala, Booth No.60, Tah. .Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 19. M.R. Bhagat, VI. VI. Adhikari Jaijaipw, Pitfiaseen Adhtari, Gram Panchayat Faraswani, AshrM: Gram Khairakala, Booth No.61, Tah. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Hari Shantor Patol, counsel for the petitioner. , Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocats for the State. Shri Y. Chaturvedi, counsel tor the respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and9to14. Shri Kalyan Kalamkar, counsel for the hitervener - : Digeshwar Singh. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 8th day ofJuiy, 2009)- . 1 . Heard learned counsel for the parti^. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12-9-2005 (Annexure - P/1) passed by ttie Specifled Officer/Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue), Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, whereby the eiection ofthe petiUoner as Sarpanch has been set aside. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the prttiorrer, are that the petitioner is a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat -^1 •3 Faraswani; The respondent No.3, belng aggriwed by the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, filed an appeal before the Sub DMsional OfRcer/Prescribed Authority, Dabhra, in revenue case No. 12/A-89(2)/2004-05 (Rame^war Singh vs. Dhaiam Singh & Offseis). 4. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing tor the peBtioner, would submit that the Sub Divisional OfRcer without enquiring tnto the allegaUai to the effect that the petitioner was in iltegal possession of the Government land has passed the orcter against the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the report submitted by the Patwari pursuant to the order of the Returning Officer is not proper, as the report is not on the basis of examinatfon ®fland records, but on the basis of panchnama, which was prepared in presence of some witnesses and in afcisence of the petitioner. On 30-8-2005, the matter was fixed for ordsrs without affordtng an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to flte response to ttie panchnama/Patwari report submitted by the Patwari, the impugned order waspassed. 5. Per contra Shri Chafajrvedi, leaned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3, 6, 7 and 9 to 14, white supporting the impigned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, woutd submit that the possession of the petitioner has been hetd as illegal, therefore, no further enquiry is necessary. It is also not required that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the peUUoner when ttie facte are admitted. 6. Shri Bhatia, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, in addiUon, would submit that the entire proceedings had taken place in presence of the petitioner, therefore, the pefitioner cannot raise the issue that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 7. I have heard tearned counsel appearing for the partes, perused fte pleadings and the docureents appended thersto. It is avident that ^SB E'"18Sns«,, 1 °s3Sa® : '^\ ^. ' • '10 i ^ll.B-^^ '^E;~"" _^,^ "v'Jf>y»sSy ft Gowri ^-1 though the petifloner was present throughout in the proceaiings before the Sub Dh/isional OfRcer, however, on receifrt of -the Patwari report -along with khasra and other necessary documents.no opportunity was afforded to the petltioner to file his re^>onse to the said report. It is a ctoar case ofviolaUon of baste principles ofnatural justice. Even if it is found that the petitioner ws@ found (n the alleged possession of the Government land <m spot inspection, the winciptes of natural justice and fair play action requires grant of opportunity to the person concemed. 8. In view of foregoing, the order dated 12-9-M05 (Annexur®- P/1) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Specified Officeis/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhra, Distriet Janjgir-Champa with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunify of hearing to the part'es particutarly in respect of possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and pass apprepriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observaUons made hereinabove may not be taken as oplnion ofthis Court. 9. In the result, the petition is atlowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. ~_,, SatishK.AgDihotri Judge -T^.TBsa^EipTs-ms^- \.^