IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3620 of 2010 Date of decision: 29th July, 2010 Tarlochan Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Govt. of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Nakur Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent No.6-Piara Singh was earlier Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Barri. Later-on he was elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners, who are residents of the village, had made a complaint that Piara Singh, in his capacity as a Sarpanch and later-on as a Panch, had taken illegal possession over the Panchayat land. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab vide order (Annexure P-9) dated 21st January, 2010, suspended respondent No.6-Piara Singh from the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat village Barri. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.6-Piara Singh filed an appeal. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order (Annexure P-11) passed by the appellate authority on 1st February, 2010, whereby appeal was accepted. A perusal of impugned order reveals that Civil Writ Petition No.3620 of 2010 during the pendency of the proceedings, the Divisional Deputy Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala conduced an enquiry and came to a conclusion that respondent No.6-Piara Singh was not in illegal possession of the Panchayat land. For this reason, the appeal was accepted and order of suspension of Piara Singh was set aside. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has stated that the Divisional Deputy Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala had not taken into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner, who reported that Piara Singh was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land. It is further stated that even if the enquiry report is taken into consideration, it has been observed by the Enquiry Officer that Piara Singh had not taken active steps to evict those persons, who were in illegal possession of the land and who according to counsel for the petitioners, were his relations. This Court, acting as a writ Court, cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority, relying upon the enquiry report, has come to a definite conclusion that respondent No.6-Piara Singh was not in illegal possession over the Panchayat land, on the basis of the revenue record. The view formulated by the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 29, 2010 rps 2