BUDH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 12659 of 2012) filed by Indraj (respondent No. 4 herein), an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Bhedanti, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, has been allowed; and the order dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure P -6), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh (respondent No. 2 herein), removing him from the post of Sarpanch, as well as the order dated 3.7.2012 (Annexure P -11) passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the aforesaid order, have been set aside. On a complaint dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P -1) made by the appellant to respondent No. 2, proceedings under Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to declare respondent No. 4 as disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat were initiated. It was alleged that one year prior to his election respondent No. 4 was in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, therefore, in view of Section 175(1)(n) of the Act, he was not qualified to contest the elections. On the said complaint, an enquiry was held and while relying upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, i.e. the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Nangal Chaudhary (respondent No. 3), the order dated 28.5.2012 ordering removal of respondent No. 4 from the post of Sarpanch was passed by respondent No. 2. The appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2012. Both these orders were challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing the writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 16.7.2013.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, after considering the report submitted by respondent No. 3 and other material, came to the conclusion that instead of respondent No. 4, his brothers were in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, and possession of his brothers cannot be taken to be physical possession of respondent No. 4 making him disqualified to contest the elections under Section 175 (1) (n) of the Act. The said finding of fact was recorded after appreciating the evidence as well as report of respondent No. 3. It has also been noticed that it is respondent No. 4 himself, who had initiated proceedings for eviction against his brothers. By considering these factors, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of removal of respondent No. 4 from the post of Sarpanch. Even, before parting with the order, the learned Single Judge held that the father and brothers of respondent No. 4 were found in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land and in this regard, the order of eviction was passed, which was upheld in appeal. While keeping in view this fact, a direction has been issued that the said persons be got evicted from the Gram Panchayat land even with the police help. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.