C.W.P. No. 21963 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21963 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 Darbara Singh .... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary, State of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No. 3 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-Sarpanch has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 – Director Panchayat, Punjab and order dated 6.9.2010 passed by State Government thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Undisputedly, petitioner being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh, Block Nadala, District Kapurthala presided over the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 26.2.2009 thereby resolving to allot Gram Panchayat land in favour of certain persons mentioned in the resolution. Undisputedly, resolution was sent to the SDM through BDPO for necessary action. Undisputedly, resolution C.W.P. No. 21963 of 2010 2 has not been accepted or accorded approved by SDM as yet. Petitioner admits in paragraph No. 22 of the writ petition that boundary walls were raised over the property in dispute. Undisputedly complaint was filed against the petitioner by the local M.L.A. i.e. respondent No. 3 - complainant that petitioner has allotted land in favour of the influential persons of the village due to some political motive. Undisputedly, on the report of the M.L.A.- respondent No. 3, an enquiry was set up by the Director – respondent No. 2. Undisputedly, after inspected the plots, a report was submitted to the effect that persons/prospective allottees were put into the possession. Undisputedly, during the inspection boundary walls over the different plots were found upto DPC level. Undisputedly, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why he could not be removed for his illegal activities putting ineligible persons in possession over the Gram Panchayat land. Undisputedly, having heard both the parties, learned Director has passed impugned order directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. In an appeal therefrom State Government also confirms the order of the removal vide impugned order. Perusal of the impugned orders reveal that petitioner was directed to be removed on the ground that petitioner has placed ineligible persons/prospective allottees in possession over the Gram Panchayat land and illegal constructions and boundary walls were raised over the Gram Panchayat land. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that till day allotment has not been confirmed. If it is so, petitioner was not supposed to place prospective allottees in the possession of Gram C.W.P. No. 21963 of 2010 3 Panchayat land. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for removal of the petitioner and pleas raised by the petitioner have not been considered. I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that specific reason has been assigned by both the authorities that petitioner has put ineligible persons in the possession of the Gram Panchayat land illegally without getting the allotment approved and those persons have raised boundary walls over the Gram Panchayat land upto DPC level. Moreover raising of the boundary walls over the plots is admitted in paragraph No. 22 of the writ petition. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that authorities were justified in removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 21.12.2010 JUDGE reena