Civil Writ Petition No. 16381 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 16381 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.12.2010 Safedi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner/Ex-Sarpanch of village Aterna has approached this Court with the prayer that the communication dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P3), wherein the directions have been given to remove the retaining wall of the pond, be quashed. Case of the petitioner is that she was elected as a Sarpanch of village in the year 2005 and performed her duties with due diligence. It is further stated that the recommendation was made by the Gram Panchayat that the retaining wall of the pond be constructed. It is further averred that for doing this, the sanction was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Panchayati Raj, Ballabhgarh. On the demarcation given, the retaining wall of the pond was constructed and the expense of Civil Writ Petition No. 16381 of 2010 2 ` 1,48,900 was incurred. It is further stated that all this was done under the supervision and advice of the Sub Divisional Officer, Panchayati Raj, Ballabhgarh and the Junior Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Ballabhgarh. A perusal of the communication (Annexure P3) reveals that notice has been given by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ballabhgarh, to the petitioner wherein it is stated that the wall of the pond was constructed after leaving 12-13 feet land. It is further stated that by committing this wrong, the loss of land of Gram Panchayat has been caused, therefore, the same be removed, otherwise legal action would be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner, in the present petition, has raised a reasonable defence and has relied upon the resolution dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure P1) and the order dated 27.3.2010 (Annexure P2) to state that the work was done in consonance with the rules and advice of the officials of the concerned department having expertise in the field. Be that as it may, this Court will not determine this controversy as all the facts raised are disputed. However, to give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and enable her to project her case, it is directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the communication dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P3), within a period of two weeks from today. The reply, so filed by the petitioner, shall be considered by the Authorities before any action is initiated. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be afforded personal hearing. Till the Authorities take the reply and the defence, to be projected by the petitioner, into consideration, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 16381 of 2010 3 With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 8, 2010 “DK”