JIT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 2003, the petitioner was elected Member Panchayat of Gram Panchayat of Village Kadiana, Block Hoshiarpur No. 1, District Hoshiarpur. In 2008, the petitioner was again elected as Member Panchayat of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's father was owning a house in the village Kadiana, which is inherited by his brother, Joga Singh, as per the family settlement. This house is constructed 50 years ago and is bounded by house of Santokh Singh on the west, house of Resham Singh on north. A street to the south of this house of the petitioner's father was marked by then Gram Panchayat and it was brick paved. Gram Panchayat again passed a resolution on 27.5.1999, whereby the earlier resolution was approved. Joga Singh, who is in possession of this disputed part of the house, moved an application before respondent No. 2 for sanctioning of resolutions, Annexures P -1 and P -2, which was done. It is alleged that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur, in connivance with some other Panchayat Members served a legal notice, Annexure P -4, to the petitioner and his brother, Joga Singh for ejectment from Khasra No. 55, alleging that this was part of the street, which they had allegedly encroached. Brother of the petitioner received this notice and contested the same. It is pleaded that Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to re -open the issue now. It is pointed out that brother of the petitioner was in exclusive possession of this house. Since the petitioner was also putto notice, he appeared before the Director on 29.3.2007. As per the petitioner, without giving any proper opportunity of hearing and without verifying the facts, respondent No. 2 suspended the petitioner from the post of Panch.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against his suspension, which was dismissed. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer stately submitted false report without appreciating the evidence on record, leading to an order, Annexure P -9, removing the petitioner from the post of Panch. He was also held disqualified for contesting the election for a period of five years. The petitioner, in the meantime, had been elected as Sarpanch. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his removal was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel could not show from the impugned order that the Director has considered the effect of order, Annexure P -11, while passing the impugned order. Only reference is found made to this order and nothing more. That would not be a consideration.