C.W.P. No.11456 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11456 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 19, 2008 Dharam Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.R.S. Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Makkar, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 20.05.2008 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Budhera Khalsa; as well as order dated 19.6.2008, whereby the appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. The petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch in April, 2005 has been removed from the office of Sarpanch by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 51(3) of the Haryana C.W.P. No.11456 of 2008 -2- Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the ground that he was found to be in illegal and unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land comprising Khasra Nos.168 and 170. Section 51(3)(c) of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to remove a Sarpanch after the enquiry and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Sarpanch, if he incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 175 after his election as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Section 175 of the Act provides for disqualifications. Clause (n) of Section 175(1) of the Act provides that no person shall be a Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or continue as such, who is or has been during the period of one year preceding the date of election, in unauthorised possession of land or other immovable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In addition to this, during the course of regular enquiry, the District Revenue Officer got demarcation of the above-said land done from Tehsildar. As per his report, petitioner is found in illegal possession of part of the above-said land. At the time of personal hearing, on the request of the petitioner, the land was again got demarcated. Again the petitioner was found in illegal possession. Undisputedly on an application filed by a resident of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), the petitioner, along with his father and brother, was found to be in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land of Gram Panchayat comprising in Khasra Nos.168 and 170 vide order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal. Copy of the said order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P18. It is further admitted position that against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the C.W.P. No.11456 of 2008 -3- Collector, Karnal and the said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 3.3.2008, while observing as under:- “After hearing the counsel for appellant carefully and perusing the record available on the file, I have reached to the conclusion that the demarcation which was done initially has been confirmed by the demarcation done again later only the name of father of Dharam Singh has been written instead of name of Dharam Singh in the names of unauthorised occupants, which appears to have been written with a view to save the appellant, because no such proof has been produced on the file which could prove that between appellant Dharam Singh and his father, partition of their land has been effected. If the land has not been partitioned, how it can be said that the land in dispute is not in his possession but is in unauthorised possession of his father. The land in dispute is land of public street of the Gram Panchayat on which other persons including the appellant have made unauthorised possession. Unauthorised possession on public street which is without any doubt the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, cannot be termed as legal just because it is old possession. Appellant Dharam Singh has made effort to prove the unauthorised possession to be legal through the written statement filed on his own behalf as well as of the Gram Panchayat and also through the appeal, which goes to show that Dharam Singh Sarpanch himself is in unauthorised possession. Therefore, there is apparently no force in the appeal.” The said order has become final and against those orders no further revision or writ petition was filed. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner attempted to assail the findings recorded in the aforesaid orders by alleging that the demarcation was not done properly. It has also been contended that while passing the order of removal under Section 51(3) of the Act, the C.W.P. No.11456 of 2008 -4- Deputy Commissioner could not have relied upon those orders. These contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merit. Firstly, a finding of fact was recorded in the aforesaid two orders to the effect that the petitioner had encroached upon a portion of the street which vests in the Gram Panchayat. The said finding of fact cannot be challenged in this petition when those orders have become final. Secondly, during the course of enquiry, under Section 51(3) of the Act, those orders, where a finding has been recorded against the petitioner about illegal and unauthorised possession, could have been considered and enquiry report can be given while relying upon those documents to the effect that the petitioner has illegally and unauthorisedly occupied the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In the instant case, an enquiry was held in which the petitioner was duly associated and on the basis of the said enquiry report in which the petitioner has been found in illegal and unauthorised possession of the Gram Panchayat land and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 19, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE