JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure P4) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal (respondent No. 2) vide which he was removed from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Baupur, District Kaithal and order dated 16.7.2003 (Annexure P5) vide which Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department (hereinafter described as 'the Appellate Authority') dismissed the appeal filed by him against the order of removal.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baupur in March, 2000. After about two years, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla sent letter dated 8.2.2002 requiring him to take action against the illegal occupants of panchayat land. By another letter of March, 2002, he directed the petitioner to file petitions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act') for ejectment of the unauthorised occupants. However, no action could be taken against some of the so-called unauthorised occupants because they had obtained decrees from the civil Courts declaring them as owners of the land in their possession. Against others, action could not be taken because of non-availability of funds. On 26.1.2003, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution Annexure P3 for obtaining grant of Rs. 10,000/- from the Panchayat Samiti for instituting cases for shamlat land and for challenging the decrees of the civil Courts in the High Court, but the required funds were not released. Notwithstanding this, four petitions were filed by the Gram panchayat for ejectment of the unauthorised occupants. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 got a preliminary enquiry conducted through Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla about the petitioner's alleged failure to take action against unauthorised occupation of panchayat land. He reported that out of 762.5 acres of shamlat land 396.6 acres had been decreed in the names of different persons and the remaining land was in possession of unauthorised occupants, but the Sarpanch had not taken action for getting the decrees set aside or for ejectment of unauthorised occupants. On receipt of the report of the preliminary enquiry, respondent No. 2 issued order dated 22.1.2003 for holding regular enquiry again the petitioner under Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Act') and appointed Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla as the enquiry officer. The latter submitted report with the finding that the petitioner had failed to take action to get the decrees set aside and for eviction of unauthorised occupants of shamlat land. Respondent No. 2 accepted the report of the Sub Divisional Officer and issued noticed dated 24.3.2003 to the petitioner to show cause against his proposed removal from the post of Sarpanch and asked him to appear on 1.4.2003 for personal hearing along with his evidence. However, the hearing could not take place on the date fixed and the petitioner was again called for personal hearing on 17.4.2003. On that date, the case was adjourned to 20.5.2003. Finally, the proceedings were held on 27.5.2003. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and stated that he had filed four cases against the illegal occupants, but action for getting the decrees set aside could not taken due to paucity of funds. Respondent No. 2 rejected the plea of the petitioner and passed order Annexure P4 for his removal from the post of Sarpanch by making the following observations :-

(3.) THE Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by assigning the following reasons :-