JAIDEWA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Jaidewa Ram challenging the order dated 27.12.2012 by which he has been declared disqualified to hold the office of Gram Panchayat, Kayamasar, Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur and consequently removed and the said office has been declared vacant.

(2.) Shri R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the impugned order has argued that impugned order was passed on the basis of enquiry report of Additional Chief Executive Officer, which is vague. Neither any charges have been framed, nor any definite finding has been given. Though the petitioner has proved the payment of nazarana as Nazir with the Government and proof of possession of land taken from Patwari, yet respondents have passed the impugned order on the premise that it has not been proved that the pattas of the alleged numbers have been issued. The record was not available with the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that the enquiry officer has blind foldedly believed the version of the complainant, who is none other than the political rival of the petitioner Om Prakash Rair, who became Sarpanch after him. In fact, this Om Prakash Rair was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for the period from 2005 to 2010 and entire record was supposed to be in his possession. Petitioner was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat from 1997 to 2000 and thereafter again elected in 2012. It is owing to the political rivalry between the two groups of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner has been falsely embroiled in this matter. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure provided for enquiry under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 has been given a complete go bye. Neither any document nor record was produced before the enquiry officer, nor any witness appeared. None of the documents, which have been relied on by respondents were not supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the impugned order and submitted that the Divisional Commissioner has also not given any definite finding as to whether the pattas were forged. He has dittoed the findings of the enquiry officer, that the pattas appears to be forged.

(3.) Shri Manu Bhargava, learned Government Counsel and Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that detailed enquiry was conducted by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, who submitted his report on 24.10.2011. In para 2 of which, reference is made to the patta bahi containing 23 names. Names of 5 persons, to whom the petitioner allegedly issued patta is missing from patta bahi. Learned counsel submitted that the land with regard to alleged patta was Charagah or Johad land and that unless there was valid conversion of the land by the competent authority, it could not become available for allotment for present purpose. Learned counsel even referred to the letter dated 24.10.2011 in which allottees themselves have stated that neither they have applied, nor they were issued pattas.