Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Darbara Singh --- Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others --- Respondents ****** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for applicant-Harbhajan Singh --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, order dated 21.12.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 21963 of 2010, filed by Darbara Singh, Sarpanch, who had been removed from the said post, is under challenge. 2. The ground for removal of the appellant-Sarpanch was that he had given possession of the Panchayat land to ineligible Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 2011 2 persons in violation of the rules on the subject. By doing so, he had earned disability and, thus, was held to be not entitled to remain on the said post, by the concerned authorities. The removed Sarpanch did not succeed in the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide the order under challenge herein. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that possession of any land was not delivered by the appellant-Sarpanch and the findings recorded in that context were contrary to the facts of the case and, therefore, not tenable in law. Learned counsel further made an endeavour to seek reversal of the learned Single Judge’s order and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & others, 2010(4) Recent Service Reports (Civil) 600 to contend that the authorities had not passed the speaking order pursuant to which the appellant was removed from the post of Sarpanch and the same was, thus, liable to be quashed. 5. After going through the said judgment, we find that the same does not advance the case of the appellant. In the instant case, in the enquiry ordered by the Director, Rural Development (Panchayats), Punjab a decision had been arrived at about the appellant’s earning disability as the enquiry officer had concluded that the two charges, i.e. of allotment of plots against the instructions of the Government and the digging of Chappar stood proved which led to his removal from the post of the Sarpanch. The judgment of the learned Single Judge before whom it was vehemently argued that Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 2011 3 no reason had been recorded by the authorities while passing the order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch delved upon this aspect and rejected the argument with the following observations: “I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that specific reason has been assigned by both the authorities that petitioner has put ineligible persons in the possession of the Gram Panchayat land illegally without getting the allotment approved and those persons have raised boundary walls over the Gram Panchayat land up to DPC level. Moreover, raising of the boundary walls over the plots is admitted in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant on the face of appellant’s own admission available on the record as recorded by the learned Single Judge could not demonstrate that the order appealed- against is illegal or perverse in any manner. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) May 30, 2011 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE *rkmalik*