FAO No. 1775 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. FAO No. 1775 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on Oct 13,2010. Smt.Puro -- Appellant vs. Smt.Manjit and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.S.Jaswal,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.J.S.Bhandohal,Advocate,for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum Election Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, dated 28.1.2010 by which election of the appellant to the post of Panch of Gram Panchayat, Saleran, District Hoshiarpur, has been set aside on the ground that she was found in unauthorised possession of land falling in khasra No.8/13/1/2 (2-5) owned by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant is not in unauthorised possession as she has submitted before the Tribunal that construction of the house on the FAO No. 1775 of 2010 (O&M) 2 land in question was raised by her fore-father, yet for the purpose of arguments, it is submitted that even if it is admitted to be so, the election of the appellant cannot be set aside on the ground which is not provided under Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short Act No.19 of 1994). It is further submitted that the ground of challenging the election of a person in unauthorised possession of Gram Panchayat land is provided under Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.9 of 1994) but as the said provision is not applicable over and above the provisions of Act No.11 of 1994, therefore, her election could not have been set aside. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi & Others 2008 (2) L.A.R. 556, in which it has been held that Act No.19 of 1994 is a subsequent legislation and disqualifications provided in section 11 thereof would prevail over and above the disqualifications provided under Section 208 of Act No.9 of 1994. Disqualifications provided in Section 208 of Act No.9 of 1994 would be applicable only in case if disqualifications in the said Act are consistent with the disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994. Admittedly, disqualification provided under Section 208 of the Act with regard to unauthorised occupation of Gram Panchayat land is in consistent with Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Som Lal's Case (Supra), the view taken by the Tribunal is patently illegal because it has relied upon Section 208 of Act No. 9 of 1994. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. FAO No. 1775 of 2010 (O&M) 3 At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he may be given permission to file an application before the Director in terms of Section 20 (i) (a) of Act No.9 of 1994. For the said purpose, to my mind, no permission from the Court is required. The respondents are free to file any application in accordance with law, if so desired. Oct 13,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge