CWP No.14901 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14901 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.08.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed assailing order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure P-6) and seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.1 to 3 to take action against respondent No.4 for removal of respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch. Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Badaguda, in his inquiry report dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-5/1) has wrongly observed that Sarpanch is not in unauthorized possession of the panchayat land and his other family members are in unauthorized possession. He has further argued that all the family members of respondent No.4 alongwith respondent No.4 are residing in the same house, which is constructed on the panchayat land, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 is not in unauthorized occupation while CWP No.14901 of 2011 -2- other family members of respondent No.4 are in unauthorized occupation. He has further argued that respondents No.2 and 3 ought to have removed respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch on the ground that respondent No.4 is in unauthorized possession of panchayat land. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the inquiry report it has been held that respondent No.4 is not in unauthorized occupation and some other persons are found in unauthorized possession of the panchayat land and Sarpanch/respondent No.4 is directed to take action against unauthorized occupants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once respondent No.4 is residing in the same house with other family members, which is constructed on the Panchayat land, therefore, respondent No.4 should also be held encroacher over the Panchayat land and is liable to be removed. Inquiry report produced before me in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is administrative report. Petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy to file a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable in Haryana, for removal of the encroachment and eviction of the encroacher from the Panchayat land. In the petition under Section 7 of the Act, authorities shall be in position to decide, after taking evidence, as to whether respondent No.4 has encroached upon the Panchayat land and is liable to be evicted. If in an proceeding under Section 7 of the Act respondent No.4 is found in illegal/unauthorized possession of the panchayat land, respondent No.4 can be placed under suspension as well as can be removed as provided under Section 51(3) CWP No.14901 of 2011 -3- (h) read with Section 175(1)(h) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. Since petitioner has efficacious remedy of getting the encroachment removed, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to find out question of fact as to whether respondent No.4 is the encroacher or not, which can easily be adjudicated upon under Section 7 of the Act. It seems that petitioner is not interested in removal of the encroachment rather is interested only in removal of Sarpanch due to some political rivalry. This Court shall not permit petitioner to misuse writ jurisdiction for political/personal vendetta. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge August 16, 2011 R.S.