IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2802 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 30 , 2009. Smt. Archana Devi ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Shri Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Election Tribunal under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short the Act), whereby the petitioner's election petition challenging the election of the 1st respondent as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Assan Kalan, Tehsil and District Panipat, has been dismissed. Election to the Gram Panchayat of the village was held in the year 2005. The undisputed facts are that the office of Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Female). 2155 votes were polled. While the 1st respondent – returned candidate polled 678 votes, the petitioner – nearest rival got 648 votes. The 1st respondent was, thus, declared elected by a margin of 30 votes. The petitioner challenged the 1st respondent's election, inter- alia, on the grounds that:- (i) she does not belong to the Scheduled Caste reserve category and is a backward class; (ii)she is in unauthorized occupation of the Gram Panchayat land and was, thus, disqualified to contest the election in terms of Section 175(n) of the Act. Alternatively, the petitioner also sought re-count of the votes as according to her, 120 votes were declared invalid which included 70 votes validly polled in her favour. Initially, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Election Tribunal vide order dated 11.5.2006 allowed the election petition after holding that the 1st respondent was not a Scheduled Caste candidate. Aggrieved, the respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.2931 of 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 31.3.2008 and the matter was remitted to the Election Tribunal to decide the controversy afresh. Thereafter, the Election Tribunal vide the impugned order has dismissed the Election Petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the pleadings. The Tribunal has rejected the first contention regarding unauthorized possession of the 1st respondent over the Gram Panchayat land after observing that in the revenue record comprising jamabandies Ex.P-12 and P-13, the land in question is shown to be in possession of the Bazigars as Maqbuja Bajigran. The said possession of the Bazigar community cannot be held to be unauthorized within the meaning of Section 175(n) of the Act. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon a copy of the report dated 3.4.2008 prepared by some revenue official suggesting that respondent No.1 had constructed her house on the Gram Panchayat land. A perusal of the aforesaid report (Annexure P-3) reveals that the same is yet to be presented before the Tehsildar and is tentative in nature and has not attained finality. Suffice it to say that there is no finding by any revenue court that the 1st respondent is in unauthorized possession of the Gram Panchayat land. Similarly, the second contention pertaining to the caste of the respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the Govt. Notification to hold that the 1st respondent belongs to Bazigar community which has been included amongst the Scheduled Castes of the State of Haryana. No exception can be taken to the view formed in this regard. Adverting to the third plea, namely, the recounting of the votes, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner could not make out a case of recounting, inasmuch, as firstly no such prayer was made by her before the Returning Officer nor did she appear to have justified such a claim on acts. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. July 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge