WAZIR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent, vide his order dated 31.8.1998, in exercise of his powers under Section 51(3)(c)(e) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 removed the appellant from the post of up-sarpanch. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) OPENING his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order does not disclose the details of the evidence treated by the respondent to be sufficient to pass the impugned order. He further argued that the respondent did not take into consideration the order dated 25.2.1997 passed by himself. He continued to argue that there is no indication in the said notice as to by what process of reasoning the respondent came to the conclusion that the reply of the appellant has been found to be unsatisfactory. In support of his arguments he cited 1997 Judicial reports (Civil and Revenue) page 455, 1981 PLJ 514 and 1995 PLJ page 55. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this appeal.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length and gone through the record. The sole charge against the appellant is his encroachment upon the panchayat land. The appellant has vehemently denied his encroachment on the panchayat land and has offered to demolish the same if proved to have existed on the panchayat land. Under these circumstances the best course available to the respondent was to insist for finding of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, concerned under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to the effect that the appellant is in illegal occupation of panchayat land and only thereafter on the basis of the said finding of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade the impugned order could have safely been passed.