RUP CHAND PANCH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 18.8.2003, in exercise of his powers under section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, removed the appellant from the office of panch after finding him guilty of encroachment on the land vested in the gram panchayat. Aggrieved by the said removal order this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) OPENING his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is in violation of the law laid down in 1991(1) PLJ 473 and 1999(1) PLJ 574. He further argued that it has also not been mentioned as to whether the land, allegedly under the unauthorised occupation of the appellant or his order family members, is Shamilat land. He continued to argue that there is no question of any finding of encroachment either against the appellant or any of his family members; that proper course, if any, available to the persons aggrieved by the election of the appellant as a panch was to file an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994; that a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the BDPO, Indri and District Revenue Officer, Karnal was never supplied to the appellant; that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing; that any of the members of the appellant's family was never associated with the so called enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2 and the DRO, Karnal; that the appellant or any of his family members never remained in the unauthorised possession of any gram panchayat land. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the record. The impugned order has been passed by invoking clause (n) of sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, according to which delinquent is required to be in unauthorised possession on the date of passing of the impugned order or during the period of one year preceding the date of election. The impugned order simply contains that the appellant has been in illegal occupation of the shamilat land of the gram panchayat. This conclusion, arrived at by the respondent No. 1, contained in the impugned order, does not clarify the period of encroachment of the appellant as to whether the period contemplated by the aforesaid clause (n) has been period of encroachment of the appellant on the land vested in the gram panchayat. Thus the impugned order is not a speaking order and consequently not sustainable in the eyes of law.