Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1187 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-10-26

J.S.NARANG, S.S.NIJJAR

body2004
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner at a very great length and perused the paper-book. 2. By order dated 13.7.2004, the Deputy Director (Land Development), Panchayat Punjab, exercising the powers of Director under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, removed the petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch, on the basis that the petitioner had incurred disqualifications mentioned in Section 208 of the Panchayati R.aj Act, 1994. The following charge was levelled against the petitioner:- "That the Sarpanch himself along with his family members are in illegal possession of shamlat land khewat khatauni No. 145/270, Khasra No. 835/19/3-5, 20/6-5, 837/22/1-3, 232/2-3, 845/301/0-15, 325/6-0, 231/1/0-7,231/1-0 totaling 20 Bights and 18 Biswas. Whereas Gram Panchayat has already won the case regarding the said land in appeal No. 432 of 1982 and in suit No. 87 of 1990, the Gram Panchayat has been declared its owner. The persons in illegal possession had filed a writ petition No. 14308 of 1993 in Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the Hon ble High Court has granted stay to the illegal possession of the land. The Sarpanch in order to retain his and his familys possession did not make any attempt from the side of Panchayat to get the stay vacated." 3. In view of the gravity of the charge, by order dated 21,11.2003 (Annexure P15), the petitioner was suspended and show cause notice dated 12.12.2003 was issued to him. In the reply filed to the show cause notice, the petitioner had denied the ownership of the Panchayat land. He had also claimed that he is not in illegal possession of the land. The reply filed by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory as it was contrary to the revenue record. The petitioner was given a personal hearing. The Gram Panchayat had filed an eviction application against the father of the petitioner way back in the year 1981. It was dismissed by the Collector/DDPO by order dated 31.5.1982 (Annexure P1). However, the appeal filed by the Panchayat was accepted by the appellate authority by its order dated 19.2.1985(Annexure P12). Father of the petitioner, Hazara Singh etc. filed CWP No. 14308 of 1993 against the order of the appellate authority. The writ petition has been admitted on 8.3.1994. While issuing notice of motion on 19.11.1993, dispossession of the petitioner herein was stayed till further orders. Father of the petitioner, Hazara Singh etc. filed CWP No. 14308 of 1993 against the order of the appellate authority. The writ petition has been admitted on 8.3.1994. While issuing notice of motion on 19.11.1993, dispossession of the petitioner herein was stayed till further orders. The petitioner in this writ petition was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2003. A complaint was filed on 29.10.2003. On the basis of the complaint, the charge reproduced earlier was framed against the petitioner. After perusing the report of the DDPO, Malerkotla, a regular enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had stated that the Sarpanch himself is tilling the land and he is not making any effort to get the stay vacated from the High Court. Even after the regular enquiry, the petitioner was again given a chance of personal hearing. He was issued a notice. The service of the notice was effected through DDPO, Malerkotla. The petitioner refused to accept service. The notice was pasted on the gate of his house. He did not turn up for the personal hearing. Another date was fixed on 13.7.2004. Again the petitioner failed to turn up. Even during the regular enquiry, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, it has been held that the petitioner, even though he is the Sarpanch, is illegally tilling the shamlat land. Consequently, Director Panchayats has ordered the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch by order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P20). Against the aforesaid order (Annexure P20), the petitioner had filed appeal (Annexure P25), which has also been dismissed by order dated 22.9.2004 (Annexure P26). It was submitted before the appellate authority that the petitioner has been condemned unheard. The observations made by the Director, Panchayats are false. No personal hearing was provided and he has no knowledge of the notice issued by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats. 4. Mr. Singla has vehemently argued that the pendency of the earlier litigation has no relevance to the functioning of the petitioner as a Sarpanch. The whole action has been taken at the instance of the opposite party in the village. The petitioner was only elected as Sarpanch in the year 2003, and therefore, there was no occasion to move an application for vacation of stay in C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993. The whole action has been taken at the instance of the opposite party in the village. The petitioner was only elected as Sarpanch in the year 2003, and therefore, there was no occasion to move an application for vacation of stay in C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993. According to the learned counsel, the entire proceedings have been conducted in breach of rules of natural justice. 5. Having considered the entire matter, we do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the very serious allegations of illegal occupation of the Panchayat land by the father and uncles of the petitioner. Before all the authorities, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that his uncles i.e. his fathers elder and younger brothers and his father are cultivating the land. The petitioner did not even care to find out the present status of the CWP No. 14308 of 1993. To make it even worse, the petitioner is himself cultivating the land. It is also an allegation against the petitioner which has not been controverted before the appropriate authority by the petitioner, that the stay order was granted by this Court in C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993, as the relevant Gram Panchayat at that time had connived with the father and the uncles of the petitioner. It has also been found that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession over 20 bighas and 18 biswas of land, whereas the mutation relied upon by the father and the uncles of the petitioner pertains to over 19 Kanals and 11 marlas. In fact khasra Nos. 837/22(l-3) and 231/1(1-0), 231/2(0-7) mentioned in C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993 are not in mutation No. 1341. It is also noticed by the appellate authority that the family of the petitioner has been indulging in litigation to continue the illegal possession of the Panchayat land. Earlier petitioners family had filed suit No. 87 of 3.2.90. Interim relief was granted by the Sub Judge Ist class, on 23.1.1992. But the suit was withdrawn and C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993 was filed. These facts were not disclosed before this Court. After going through the entire record and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the appellate authority has passed a detailed speaking order. Interim relief was granted by the Sub Judge Ist class, on 23.1.1992. But the suit was withdrawn and C.W.P. No. 14308 of 1993 was filed. These facts were not disclosed before this Court. After going through the entire record and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the appellate authority has passed a detailed speaking order. Three departmental authorities have given concurrent findings of fact, after appreciating of the oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. We are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the departmental authorities cannot be said to be either arbitrary or based on no evidence. This Court, whilst exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, would not examine the findings of fact as an appellate forum. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. It is exercised cautiously and sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors committed by the inferior Tribunals or otherwise to secure the ends of justice by preventing abuse of process of law. This view of ours finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477 wherein it has been held as follows:- "7.....The jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. As an error of law which is apparent on the fact of the record can be corrected by a writ, but no an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot, however, be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the points cannot be agitated before a writ Court, (S) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 233 and A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 398 and A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1168." 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.