FAO No. 6020 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 6020 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Pal Singh .. Appellant v. Sarwan Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. P. Soi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. KDS Sodhi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 30.4.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, `the Tribunal') allowing the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the election of the appellant as Panch of Gram Panchayat, village Buttran, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the elections of the Gram Panchayat held in May, 2008, the appellant was elected as a Panch. His election was challenged by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the appellant was in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The Tribunal, wrongly coming to the conclusion that the appellant is in illegal possession of the panchayat land, set aside the election of the appellant. The order passed by the Tribunal suffers from inherent defects, namely, that the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 itself was not maintainable for the reason that he had not impleaded all the contesting candidates as party, as is required under Section 77 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, `Act No. 19 of 1994'). On account of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 77 of Act No. 19 of 1994, the election petition was liable to be dismissed in terms of Section FAO No. 6020 of 2010 [2] 80 thereof. He further submitted that even otherwise, the election of the appellant could not be declared void on the ground of his allegedly being in unauthorised possession of the panchayat land, as this is not one of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 11 of Act No. 19 of 1994. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that election of the appellant only being under challenge, he was impleaded as respondent in the election petition. However, he could not dispute the fact that in terms of Section 77 of Act No. 19 of 1994, all the contesting candidates were required to be impleaded as respondents in the election petition, the consequences of non-compliance of which have been provided for under Section 80 thereof. He further submitted that as far as the appellant being in unauthorised occupation of the panchayat land is concerned, the same is one of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, `Act No. 9 of 1994') and on account of that fact, the election of the appellant has rightly been set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as issue regarding disqualification of the appellant on account of his being in unauthorised occupation of the panchayat land is concerned, the same has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this court in a number of judgments and it has been opined that it is only the disqualifications, which have been mentioned in Section 11 of Act No. 19 of 1994, which are applicable and not what is provided for under Section 208 of Act No. 9 of 1994. Unauthorised occupation of land of a local authority is not one of the disqualifications under Section 11 of Act No. 19 of 1994. Accordingly, on that ground the election of the appellant could not have been set aside. Reference can be made to Harbhajan Singh v. Major Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 517; Jawala Singh v. The Election Tribunal-cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barnala (Punjab) and others,2010(3) RCR (Civil) 368 and order dated 1.2.2011 passed in FAO No. 4570 of 2009—Mohinder Singh v. Gurmeet Singh and others. As far as the issue regarding impleading of necessary parties in the election petition is concerned, the issue has already been gone into by this court in numerous judgments and it has been consistently opined that in FAO No. 6020 of 2010 [3] terms of the provisions of Section 77 of Act No. 19 of 1994, where the election petitioner is claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate is void and claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate be declared as duly elected, all the contesting candidates and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates and any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition, are the necessary parties, required to be impleaded as respondents in the petition. In the present case, respondent No. 1 had impleaded only the appellant as respondent in the election petition, though in terms of the provisions of Section 77 of Act No. 19 of 1994, considering the relief prayed for by him in the election petition, he was required to implead all the contesting candidates. The consequences of non-impleadment of the contesting respondents in terms of Section 77 of Act No. 19 of 1994 have been provided for in Section 80 thereof, i.e., dismissal of the petition. Similar view was expressed by this court in Manjit Kaur v. Deputy Commisioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 784. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 9.2.2011 mk