SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 29/7/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats (Exercising the powers of Government under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994) vide which the order dtd. 7/12/2021 has been set aside and respondent No.4 has been reinstated as Sarpanch of Village Kohala, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Further prayer has been made that the order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No.4 had been suspended from the post of Sarpanch, be upheld. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.4-Jassa Singh was elected as Sarpanch of Village Kohala in January, 2019. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, vide its order dtd. 7/12/2021 (Annexure P-3), had suspended respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch while exercising its powers under Sec. 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1994 Act') on the ground that respondent No.4 had not initiated action for vacating the illegal occupation of the occupants from the panchayat land and had colluded with them. Respondent No.4 had filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government and the said appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 29/7/2022 (Annexure P-4) and respondent No.4 was reinstated to the post of Sarpanch. In the said order, it was stated that the observations made in the order would have no bearing on the merits of the regular inquiry which is pending. The petitioner, who is stated to be a resident of Village Kohala, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dtd. 29/7/2022 (Annexure P-4) reinstating respondent No.4 as Sarpanch. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier Gram Panchayat had instituted an application under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act read with Ss. 5 and 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 for evicting Satnam Kaur wife of Bikkar Singh, Bikkar Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Bikkar Singh and Tara Singh son of Dhir Singh from Khewat No.337, Khatauni No.517, Khasra No.83(4-10) situated in Village Kohala, District Jalandhar. It is further submitted that vide order dtd. 21/3/2018 (Annexure P-1), the DDPO-cum-Collector, Jalandhar had allowed the said application and the said persons were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute and were directed to remove the illegal encroachment and were imposed a penalty/fine of Rs.50,000.00. It is contended that respondent No.4 who was elected as a Sarpanch in January 2019, did not take any active steps to evict the persons named above, against whom, the eviction order dtd. 21/3/2018 had been passed. It is further contended that it is the petitioner who had filed writ petition bearing No.CWP-10879-2019 and in the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 14/9/2021, had directed that demarcation be carried out by Total Survey Machine on or before 29/9/2021 and the matter was adjourned to 6/10/2021 with a direction that demarcation report be submitted before the Court and it was further observed that in case, any of the parties were found to be in illegal possession of land then the said party would hand over the vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that it is on account of effort made by the present petitioner and on account of orders passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that illegal encroachment was removed. It is argued that respondent No.4 who was appointed as Sarpanch in January 2019 had not taken any active steps to get the eviction of the persons who were in illegal occupation of the land and even in the petition filed by the petitioner, no active support was given by respondent No.4. It is further argued that before the order dtd. 7/12/2021 (Annexure P-3) was passed, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the office of District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar and the said report was also taken into consideration while passing the order dtd. 7/12/2021 and in the said order, it had been rightly observed that respondent No.4 had not initiated any action for getting the encroachers removed from the panchayat land on account of connivance with the illegal occupants. It is also submitted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, is cryptic and non-speaking and even the resolutions which have been taken into consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, would not further the case of respondent No.4. It is argued that respondent No.4 is a public servant and since, he did not perform his duties diligently, thus, he does not deserve to hold the post of Sarpanch. It is further argued that respondent No.4 had not complied with the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Hon'ble High Court and as per the Explanation to Sec. 20 of the 1994 Act, the same would amount to misconduct inasmuch as it is the duty of the Sarpanch to carry out the lawful orders of any competent authority and thus, the order reinstating respondent No.4 as Sarpanch deserves to be set aside. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.4:-