Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1172 (PNJ)

Jit Ram v. State of Punjab

2012-09-10

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 2003, the petitioner was elected Member Panchayat of Gram Panchayat of Village Kadiana, Block Hoshiarpur No.1, District Hoshiarpur. In 2008, the petitioner was again elected as Member Panchayat of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's father was owning a house in the village Kadiana, which is inherited by his brother, Joga Singh, as per the family settlement. This house is constructed 50 years ago and is bounded by house of Santokh Singh on the west, house of Resham Singh on north. A street to the south of this house of the petitioner's father was marked by then Gram Panchayat and it was brick paved. Gram Panchayat again passed a resolution on 27.5.1999, whereby the earlier resolution was approved. Joga Singh, who is in possession of this disputed part of the house, moved an application before respondent No.2 for sanctioning of resolutions, Annexures P-1 and P-2, which was done. It is alleged that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur, in connivance with some other Panchayat Members served a legal notice, Annexure P-4, to the petitioner and his brother, Joga Singh for ejectment from Khasra No.55, alleging that this was part of the street, which they had allegedly encroached. Brother of the petitioner received this notice and contested the same. It is pleaded that Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to re-open the issue now. It is pointed out that brother of the petitioner was in exclusive possession of this house. Since the petitioner was also put to notice, he appeared before the Director on 29.3.2007. As per the petitioner, without giving any proper opportunity of hearing and without verifying the facts, respondent No.2 suspended the petitioner from the post of Panch. The petitioner filed an appeal against his suspension, which was dismissed. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer statedly submitted false report without appreciating the evidence on record, leading to an order, Annexure P-9, removing the petitioner from the post of Panch. He was also held disqualified for contesting the election for a period of five years. The petitioner, in the meantime, had been elected as Sarpanch. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his removal was dismissed. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court, pointing out that petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against his brother was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 17.2.2010. The petitioner, in the meantime, had been elected as Sarpanch. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his removal was dismissed. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court, pointing out that petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against his brother was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 17.2.2010. The Court had held that as per the resolutions passed by the Panchayat on 25.1.1975 and 27.5.1999, the Panchayat has no connection or concern with the land/place in dispute and the Panchayat was directed that it may not cause any harm or cause any loss/damage of any kind to the four walls or the house in question. The grievance is that this order has totally been ignored and not kept in view while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. This is the position despite the specific directions having been issued by this Court vide Annexure P-12 to consider order, Annexure P-11 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The respondent-Director was specifically directed to keep in view the order, Annexure P-11, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner holding that the Panchayat has no concern with the land occupied by the brother of the petitioner. The matter was remitted by this Court with this specific direction to the Director but he again has not considered the effect of Annexure P-11. Learned State counsel could not show from the impugned order that the Director has considered the effect of order, Annexure P-11, while passing the impugned order. Only reference is found made to this order and nothing more. That would not be a consideration. It seems that the Director has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Normally, in such a situation, it would have been appropriate to remand the case to the Director to reconsider the issue and decide the same as per the parameters laid down and direction issued by this Court. Since the Director has failed to follow the direction issued earlier conveyed by this Court, it would be futile now again to remand the case back to him to reconsider the issue. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered. Since the Director has failed to follow the direction issued earlier conveyed by this Court, it would be futile now again to remand the case back to him to reconsider the issue. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered. The impugned order, removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, is set-aside as order, Annexure P-11 clearly shows that allegation of encroachment can not be held against the petitioner in any manner in view of the facts and the position noticed above. The petitioner is restored as Sarpanch. The Director is saddled with costs of `5,000/- which he would deposit in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Punjab, as because of his act, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court again for which this Court had to spend time, which could have been utilised better in disposing of some other cases.