In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. FAO NO.2131 of 2009 Decided on January 25,2010. Dharampal Singh -- Appellant vs. Jagtar Singh and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal,Advocate,for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, (Oral) This appeal is directed against order of learned Deputy commissioner-cum Election Tribunal, Patiala, dated 07.1.2009, whereby an election petition filed by the appellant was dismissed . Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that election for the post of seven panches of Gram Panchayat, Paharpur, was notified which included three posts for General Category, one post for Woman Category, one post for Scheduled Caste Category, one post for Scheduled Caste (Women Category) and one post for Backward Class Category. Four persons contested against three posts for General Category and secured votes as under:- Name of candidates No. of votes secured Dharam Singh 104 Sukhdev Singh 84 Jagtar Singh 52 Dharampal Singh 22 FAO No.2131 of 2009 (O&M) -2- As against one post of General Category (Woman), two candidates were in the fray who polled votes as under:- Names of candidates No. of votes secured Shamsher Kaur 131 Jaswant Kaur 2 Admittedly, amongst four persons of General Category, Dharampal Singh secured minimum 22 votes and between General (Women Category), Jaswant Kaur could poll only 2 votes. Both of them filed an election petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short,'the Act') read with Rule 50 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules 1994 (for short,'Rules') challenging the election of Jagtar Singh and Shamsher Kaur. In respect of Jagtar Singh, it is submitted that his father Harnek Singh used to take land on lease from Gram Panchayat, Paharpur annually. He had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, Act of 1961) against the Panchayat. His father was in illegal possession of shamlat land against whom a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, Act of 1961) and Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Rules, 1964 (for short, Rules of 1964) for ejectment and damages equivalent to 20 times of the lease money was filed for the use and illegal occupation of the land bearing khasra Nos.667 and 666, measuring 15 Bighas 17 Biswas and since Jagtar Singh is unmarried and living with his father, therefore, it was claimed that he too is in unauthorised possession and was disqualified from contesting FAO No.2131 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the election. In respect of Shamsher Kaur, it is alleged that she is widow of Pala Singh and is living with her sons. Her deceased husband and her sons used to take shamlat land on lease from Gram Panchayat, Paharpur. Her sons have not handed over vacant possession of the land after the expiry of lease. They have filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for declaration of title in the land . The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 20-A of the Rules, 1964 for recovery of damages. It was alleged that objections were filed before the Returning Officer for cancellation of their nomination papers on the ground that they are in illegal and unauthorised possession of shamlat land, but to no avail. During the pendency of the election petition, petitioner No.2. filed an application and withdrew his petition. Petitioner No.1. continued with the election petition, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that none of the respondents, namely Jagtar Singh and Shamsher Kaur were found to be in unauthorised possession of the shamlat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, therefore, their election cannot be questioned. Aggrieved against dismissal of the election petition, election petitioner No.1- Dharampal Singh has come up in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is specifically provided in Section 208 (1) (k) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 that if a person is in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land, then he is not qualified to be elected as panch. It is submitted that FAO No.2131 of 2009 (O&M) -4- father of respondent No.1. has been in unauthorised possession of the panchayat land, who not only filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1961 claiming the ownership but is also facing a petition under Section 7 of the Act, 1961 which has been filed with Rule 20-A of the Rules,1964 and the respondent is living with his father. Therefore, he is deemed to be in unauthorised possession and was not legally entitled or qualified for the purpose of contesting the election. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with his assistance. Admittedly, there is no allegation against respondent No.1. (Jagtar Singh) that he, at any point of time, was found in unauthorised possession of shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat, Paharpur. All that has been said is that his father is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat and since he is living with him, therefore, he is deemed to be in illegal and unauthorised possession of shamlat land. I am afraid that the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be subscribed as the law debars a person from contesting an election if he himself is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land of Gram Panchayat. Any illegal act committed by any member of the family of such individual cannot take away his right to contest election as it is an individual right and for that purpose, qualification and disqualification of an individual has to be seen for the purpose of his election and or in order to unseat him. FAO No.2131 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Thus, I do not find any plausible reason warranting interference in the order passed by the learned Tribunal while disposing of the election petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine,though without any order as to costs. January 25,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge