BHARTU AND ANOTHER Vs. MAMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were three candidates, namely, Maman Singh, Bhartu and Suraj Bhan, for the election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Barota, in District Rohtak. Maman Singh secured the largest number of votes and was, consequently, declared elected. Bhartu filed an election petition challenging his election on the ground that since he was a tenant of this Gram Panchayat with respect to the land comprised in khasra No. 2962 situate in village Barota, he was disqualified to seek election. His election was, therefore, liable to be set aside, because of the improper acceptance of his nomination paper. The Prescribed Authority, who tried this petition, came to the conclusion that Maman Singh was cultivating this land as a tenant and, therefore, not entitled to stand for election. His nomination paper had, consequently, been improperly accepted. As a result, he set aside the election of Maman Singh and ordered re -election.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that the question whether Maman Singh was a tenant of the Gram Panchayat was essentially one of fact. After discussing the entire evidence, the Prescribed Authority had come to a decision that he was a tenant. This finding of fact, based on evidence as it was, could not be set aside in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He also contended that it would be quite an anomalous position that a person, who had taken illegal possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and was not paying any rent for it, should not be disqualified, while a tenant of the Gram Panchayat was not eligible to stand for election.

(3.) THE result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will make no order as to costs.