TEJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram, Panchayat, Nagla in the elections to the Panchayats held in June, 2003. As per the averments made in the petition, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 on 25.7.1994 against one Lachhman Singh. As a counter-blast, it appears that Lachhman Singh also filed a petition under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act, which was decided on 29.11.1996 declaring him as owner of the land in question. The Gram Panchayat, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Director Panchayats, which was decided on 19.9.2003 and the order dated 29.11.1996 was reversed and the Gram Panchayat was held to be the owner of the land in dispute. The Director, however, ordered the land to be transferred to Lachhman Singh @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla. The Gram Panchayat through the petitioner challenged this part of the order by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 16033 of 2003, in which notice of motion was issued and stay was granted. This petition was eventually dismissed and withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Civil Writ Petition No. 10736 of 2004 was thereafter filed, in which notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is the case of the petitioner that as a consequence of the action taken, Lachhman Singh manipulated a complaint against the petitioner that he had encroached upon land measuring 5 Bigha 12 Biswasi of Khasra No. 440 (0-11). The petitioner was accordingly issued a show cause notice, Annexure P-5, in this regard. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure P-2) and pointed out that a Government Dispensary had been constructed on this very land in khasra No. 440 about 20 years ago along with a boundary wall. He further stated that his father had constructed his house about 15 years ago over Khasra No. 439, which was owned and possessed by him. The Deputy Director after a preliminary enquiry placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) giving a finding that the had encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P-4) against the said order before the Director, Panchayats, Punjab, who vide his order dated 22.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the same and up-held the order of the Deputy Director. The orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 have been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the regular enquiry, which had been conducted pursuant to the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner had been exonerated, but a fresh enquiry has been ordered against him, which was the subject-matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 9924 of 2005, which too was listed along with this matter.