Mahabir Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch on December 31, 1991, is aggrieved by the order dated May 11, 1992 by which he was called upon to show cause as to why action u/s 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 be not initiated against him. Two charges were levelled against him. Firstly it was alleged that his father bad constructed a boundary wall on land bearing Khasra Nos. 102, 193 and 106 (measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas) and that he had not initiated any legal proceedings against him. Secondly, it was alleged that he had sold an old ''kikkar'' tree standing on the Gram Panchayat land. The petitioner challenges this notice primarily on the ground that the charges were belied by the entries in the revenue record and were totally false. It is the petitioner''s claim that the action had been initiated against him at the instance of the candidate who had lost during election and was wholly arbitrary and unfair.

The Motion Bench while admitting the writ petition had permitted the respondents to continue with the enquiry but restrained them from passing an order of suspension. Consequently, the enquiry has been completed Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has produced before me a copy of the enquiry report dated Janaury 15, 1993 submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa. The Officer has found that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 226, 122 and 193, belongs to the Gram Panchayat but is in unauthorised occupation of S/Shri Om Parkash and Kanwar Chand. It has been further observed that the petitioner had put them in unauthorised occupation of the property. So for as the second charge is concerned, it has been found that "it is not proved".

Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. S.C. Mohunta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that the Jamabandis relating to the years 1964-65 and 1977-78 show the land in dispute had been in the possession of Om Parkash etc and they had even constructed a house thereon. On this premises, learned counsel contends that Om Parkash etc. had come into possession of the land in dispute a long time prior to December 1991 when the petitioner had entered the office as a Sarpanch. In this situation, even the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is apparently misconceived. Faced with this situation, Mr. Jaswant Singh contends that the petitioner should have taken steps to evict the unauthorised occupants from the land in dispute.

The precise charge leveled against the petitioner is only to the effect that his father had constructed a boundary wall on Panchayat land. Apparently, even the Enquiry Officer has not found this charge to have been proved. Still further, the finding that the petitioner had put Om Parkash etc. into unauthorised possession, is belied by the entries in the revenue record. To illustrate : Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 shows that Om Parkash s/o Manfu is in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 193. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner had put Om Parkash into possession of the property in dispute. Still further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents viz. that the petitioner should have taken steps to evict the unauthorised occupants also cannot be sustained as no such allegation has been levelled against him in the show cause notice. In fact, It appears that soon after the petitioner had assumed office as a Sarpanch, the proceedings were initiated against him. The authority concerned did not even examine the prima facie correctness of the allegations contained in the complaint. It did not take care to verify the basic facts before issuing the show cause notice, In this situation, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner, cannot be sustained.

As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The show cause notice dated May 11, 1992, is quashed. Even the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000/-.