IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17450 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 01.10.2008 Swarn Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners, who were lessees of Gram Panchayat Village Pandori Waraich, Tehsil and District Amritsar, in the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders 28.6.2005 (Annexure P-5), passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar, respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as `the DDPO'), and the order dated 25.6.2008, passed by the Secretary, Punjab Government, Village Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No.1 herein; and further for directing the respondents not to recover the disputed lease amount from the petitioners, pertaining to the years 1995-96 CWP No. 17450 of 2008 -2- and 1996-97. It is the case of the petitioners that they had taken certain land of the Gram Panchayat on yearly lease in the aforesaid years. They have paid the entire lease amount and nothing is due against them, but the respondents are illegally recovering certain amount from them in this regard. However, on the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that certain amount of lease was not paid by the petitioners and now the same is being recovered from them with interest. In this case, vide order dated 28.5.1997, passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Verka, District Amritsar, respondent No.3 herein (hereinafter referred to as `the BDPO'), an amount of Rs.3,22,468/- was ordered to be recovered from Iqbal Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.5 herein, on the allegation that he had recovered the amount of lease from various lessees, which was not deposited by him in the fund of the Gram Panchayat. He filed an appeal against the said order before the DDPO, alleging that actually some of the lessees did not deposit the lease amount, therefore, he was not liable to pay the said amount. Initially, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was dismissed, against which he preferred an appeal before respondent No.1, who after setting aside the order remanded the matter to the DDPO to re- investigate the matter, whether from the lessees, the lease amount was completely recovered or not. After the remand, the DDPO further enquired into the matter and after hearing the lessees, he came to the conclusion that some lease CWP No. 17450 of 2008 -3- amount was actually not paid by the lessees, therefore, the Sarpanch was not liable to pay the said amount. Though the petitioners were not party in the appeal, but Kartar Singh, son and brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively, and other lessees filed a petition, challenging the aforesaid order. Vide ordre dated 6.10.2004, the petition of the lessees was accepted and the matter was again remanded by respondent No.1 to the DDPO, while coming to the conclusion that the matter requires detailed investigation, and the DDPO was directed to check the record and the receipts and conduct verification and pass clear order with regard to recovery from the various lessees/defaulters. Thereafter, the DDPO, after giving due opportunity to the lessees, passed the impugned order dated 28.6.2005, while coming to the conclusion that the lease amount is to be recovered from the lessees, as they have not deposited the same with the Panchayat. Pursuant to the said order, two separate notices dated 6.10.2005 were issued to both the petitioners, according to which an amount of Rs.32,900/- with interest was to be recovered from petitioner No.1 for the year 1996-97 and an amount of Rs. 1,45,500/- with interest was to be recovered from petitioner No.2 for the year 1995-96. After receiving the notices, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.1, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 25.6.2008. While dismissing the appeal, respondent No.1 has held that in spite of the opportunity given to the petitioners, they did not lead any evidence with regard to the payment of the lease amount to the Gram Panchayat. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners. CWP No. 17450 of 2008 -4- During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners had paid the entire lease amount to the Gram Panchayat. Their stand is that they have paid the said amount to the Sarpanch, but they neither led any evidence nor placed on record the receipt regarding receiving of the said amount by the Sarpanch or the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. In our view, both the authorities, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and taking into consideration the Panchayat record, have recorded a finding of fact that both the petitioners have not paid the part of the lease amount, which they are liable to pay with interest. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any documentary evidence depicting the payment of the lease amount to the Sarpanch or the Gram Panchayat. The oral assertion of the petitioners that the lease amount was paid to the Sarpanch cannot be accepted, particularly when in the record of the Gram Panchayat, part of the lease amount stands due against them. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 01, 2008 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) ndj JUDGE