Surinder, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat vs Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Challenge herein is to an order dated 22.10.1997 (Annexure P3) passed by Director of Panchayats, Haryana whereby application filed by third respondent Sham Nath, Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ambli u/s 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was accepted and the petitioner was disqualified from continuing to be the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ambli and seat of Sarpanch occupied by the petitioner was declared to have become vacant as also order dated 21.4.1998 (Annexure P5) and order dated 11.5.1998 (Annexure P6) passed by the first respondent, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Order Annexure P3 was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case reveal that Sham Nath Up-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Ambli moved an application u/s 177 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act of 1994) for disqualification of petitioner from continuing to be a Sarpanch being in illegal occupation of panchayat land comprising in Khasra No. 29/7/8/13/1/ and 14/1 measuring 18 Kanals 9 Marias The Director Development and Panchayats before whom the application aforesaid came up for hearing, from the record that was made available to him, returned a finding that the petitioner was in illegal possession of panchayat land. While arriving at a conclusion referred to above the Director relied upon revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari for the year 199596. The order passed by the Director would also reveal that demarcation report dated 8.9.1995 of the Local Commissioner was also produced and that the petitioner had, thus, occupied the land illegally and was cultivating the same. Being a Sarpanch he was duty bound to protect the panchayat land whereas he had himself grabbed the panchayat land. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana as also luifore this Court it has been argued that application u/s 177 of the Act of 1994 is not maintainable against the Sarpanch. Provisions of Section 177 are confined to a member of Gram Panchayat, Panch or Up-Sarpanch in view of clause (xli) of Section 2 of the Act of 1994. The term "member of a Gram Panchayat" does not include Sarpanch contend the learned counsel representing the petitioner. This point was dealt with by the Commissioner and the contention as raised by the learned counsel was repelled by observing as follows :

"The term member of a Gram Panchayat used in Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has nowhere been defined in the said Act. Clause (xli) defines Panch as a member of Gram Panchayat, this definition of Panch does not mean that the term member of a Gram Panchayat is confined to Panch only and does not include Sarpanch. Under these circumstances the words unless the context otherwise requires used in the beginning of Section 2 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 are significant and thus the meaning of the term member of a Gram Panchayat shall have to be found keeping in mind the context in which the said term has been used by the Legislature. Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read alongwith Section 175 thereof and when both the sections are read together, the context is crystal clear that the term member of a Gram Panchayat used in sub-section (1) of Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, includes Sarpanch as well."

We have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana and find no infirmity therein. If the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is accepted it would mean that the Sarpanch may do whatever he likes to do and yet no action can at all ever be taken against him. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proper evidence was led to show that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. We find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel as well. Demarcation report had been submitted by the Local Commission and the revenue record in the shape of Khasra Girdawaris were also produced. The petitioner did not rebut the evidence led against him. It may be true that whereas the Jamabandi has a presumption of truth attached to it, the same may not be true with regard to Khasra Girdawari but it cannot be said that Khasra Girdawari has no evidentiary value whatsoever. Matters like the one in hand i.e., possession of a party over a particular piece of land are decided on preponderance of evidence and as mentioned above; petitioner led no evidence whatsoever to rebut the evidence that was led against him.

We find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same in limine.