CHANDU LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Article 226 is to the order dated 3.1.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari and order dated 14.3.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the appellate authority holding that the petitioner is found to be in unauthorized possession of passage in khasra No. 120 and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari had ordered his eviction vide his order dated 17.10.1995. The petitioner has been disqualified for the position of a Sarpanch by invoking the provisions of Section 175(n) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity 'the Act') and the post of Sarpanch has been declared vacant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that on 3.4.2005, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the general elections against a post meant for reserved category. One Chandgi Ram filed a complaint under Section 175(n) of the Act against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of khasra No. 120 which is gair mumkin rasta. He further alleged that the petitioner has constructed his house on the same despite the fact that an order of eviction dated 17.10.1995 has been passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari which has attained finality. The petitioner contested the claim. He asserted that the order dated 17.10.1995 with regard to his eviction was executable and he was not in unauthorised possession of any portion of the rasta. He pleaded that the application was filed due to party-faction and that the petitioner had moved an application before the Tehsildar, Rewari for demarcation of khasra No. 120. He also pleaded that in a family settlement the house has fallen to the share of his son Rajinder and in that regard reliance was placed on the family settlement. A copy of the complaint and the reply have been placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2. After examining the rival contentions, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion in his order dated 3.1.2006 that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land and held as under :

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the demarcation report dated 19.12.2005 on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner could not have been discarded as the same has been prepared with complete details and thorough investigation. He has claimed that the aforementioned report by the ex-Kanungo is a genuine report and has been prepared in an impartial manner and all the persons present on the spot were satisfied. The learned counsel has then argued that in any case the house in question has fallen to the share of his son Rajinder in a family settlement. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the copy of the ration card which is undated (Annexure P-3).