Civil Writ Petition No.13164 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13164 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Ram Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate for the Caveators. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 30.5.2011 upholding the allotment of five marla plots to 99 persons in village Ramgarh (Boran), Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala and reinstating the Sarpanch and two Panches who were suspended on account of alleged irregularities in the said allotment. Case of the petitioners is that as per Government policy dated 17.4.2001 five marla plots were to be allotted to homeless members of the scheduled castes. Accordingly, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of S.D.M., Nabha and on recommendations of the committee, 102 plots were allotted. On a complaint alleging irregularities, an enquiry was held by Tehsildar, Nabha, who in his report dated 7.9.2010 found that except three plots allotted to Bhim Dass etc., Jarnail Singh and Gurmeet Singh, there was no irregularity in allotment of 99 plots. Action was recommended for wrongful allotment of the said three plots resulting in suspension of the Sarpanch and two Panches. By impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has reinstated the Sarpanch and the members of the Panchayat holding that the members alone could not be held responsible as the Civil Writ Petition No.13164 of 2011 -2- *** committee was headed by the S.D.M., Nabha. The conclusion reached by the Financial Commissioner is as under:- “Keeping in view the submissions made by both the parites, I have arrived at conclusion that the method adopted by the village Gram Panchayat in allotment of plots of five marlas to poor families from the village Shamlat land is according to law and when this allotment was being made no one raised any objection. In the enquiry it was found that the allotment to 99 out of 102 beneficiaries was valid and the selection of three beneficiaries was invalid. Only the Gram Panchayat is not authorised in allotment of five marla plots to the poor families from the Panchayati land but a procedure has been framed at departmental level for this purpose. Therefore, if the selection of three beneficiaries is not valid then only the appellant cannot be held responsible and it is appropriate at the department level if the allotment is not valid then proceedings should be initiated to cancel it. Keeping in view all the facts the appeal of the appellant is hereby accepted and the order of suspension by the Director is set aside and the appellant is restored to the post of Sarpanch.” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Caveators. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the view taken by the Financial Commissioner was erroneous and all the allotments should have been held to be invalid. The Financial Commissioner should not have reinstated the Sarpanch and two Panches who were members of the Committee. Civil Writ Petition No.13164 of 2011 -3- *** We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly the allotment committee was headed by the S.D.M. and in absence of individual role of the Sarpanch and two Panches, there was no justification for their suspension as held by the Financial Commissioner. Moreover, 99 allotments out of 102 have been found to be valid. The conclusion of the Financial Commissioner has not been shown to be erroneous. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the Sarpanch and two Panches states that Panchayat is taking steps in the matter. The said issue may be finalised within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the grievance of the petitioners with regard to said three plots remains unattended, they will be at liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 26, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge