BHAL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29th of March, 1980 by which he has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Intal Khurd, under Section 102(2)(Dd) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). The Petitioner has been removed on ground that the Panchayat lost 3 Kanals 18 Marias of land due to the statement made by the Petitioner in a civil suit got filed by him in connivance with his cousins. After due enquiry and show-cause notice in accordance with law, the Deputy Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was responsible for causing loss to the Gram Panchayat by agreeing to transfer 3 Kanals 18 Marias of land to his own cousins in a collusive manner.

(2.) I have gone through the enquiry report and I find that the enquiry officer recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner without getting a resolution passed from the Panchayat and without getting the approval of the Government got the land of the Panchayat transferred in favour of his cousins by makings a statement in a collusive suit. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in fact the land measuring 3 Kanals 18 Marias was not transferred by the Petitioner to his cousins, but the said land was exchanged in lieu of some other land which was useful for allotting the same in the Abadi of the Harijans and therefore, the impugned order is bad. This contention of the learned Counsel is without any merit. It has been found as a fact, which is not denied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Petitioner did not get any resolution of the Gram Panchayat passed for transferring the Panchayat property nor did he obtain sanction from the Government, which is a must under the rules. He having dealt with the property of the Gram Panchayat without due authority and in favour of his cousins in collusion, the impugned order cannot be assailed on any ground. It has further been found from the record that the plea of exchange is also factually incorrect. It is on record that when the decree was got passed by the Petitioner in favour of his own cousins and when the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice, he in connivance with his cousins made an application before the learned Sub-Judge for amendment of the decree and got the decree amended to the effect that the land of the Gram Panchayat was exchanged with the land of his cousins. There is admittedly no resolution passed By the Gram Panchayat for the exchange nor there is any sanction of the Government in this regard.

(3.) No other point has been pressed.