Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.;— The petitioner has challenged order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh/respondent No. 2, who removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhedanti, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [for short 'the Act'] and order dated.3.7.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana/respondent No. 1 upholding the order of the Commissioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Village Bhedanti, Block Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh on 12.6.2010, by defeating Hari Ram son of Jeet Ram with a margin of 20 votes. Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 177 of the Act alleging that the petitioner with his father Rameshwar and his brothers Matadeen and Jai Singh is in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marias situated in the Gram Panchayat Bhedanti comprising Khe-wat No. 100 Min, Khatoni No. 122 Min, Mustil and Killa No. 41//8 as per the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 which has been assigned Khe-wat No. 106 Min, Khatoni No. 129 Min, Mustil and Killa No. 41/18 as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 as well as in the Khasra girdwari as Gair Mumkin Pahad (hill). He further alleged in his application dated 8.7.2010 that since the petitioner is in illegal possession over the Panchayat land, he is liable to be disqualified in terms of Section 175 of the Act. After receiving the complaint, respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 19.1.2011 directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer [for short 'BDPO'] to enquire and submit a report as regards to encroachment upon the Panchayat land by the petitioner after the year 2003. The BDPO, Nangal Chaudhary carried out spot inspection through Naib Tehsildar, in the presence of Mahavir Singh, Halka Girdawar and Shish Ram, Patwari. It was stated in the report that Smt. Bhuri Devi widow of Rameshwar was living in Khasra No. 41//8 along with his son Matadeen. The BDPO submitted his report vide Memo No. 489 dated 27.6.2011 but in the meanwhile respondent No. 4 challenged the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by respondent No. 2, by way of an appeal bearing No. 71 of 2011 before respondent No. 1. The BDPO submitted his report vide Memo No. 489 dated 27.6.2011 but in the meanwhile respondent No. 4 challenged the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by respondent No. 2, by way of an appeal bearing No. 71 of 2011 before respondent No. 1. After hearing the appeal, respondent brothers in the proceedings initiated under Section 7(2) of the No. 1, vide his order dated 21.2.2012 maintained the order dated 19.1.2012 but respondent No. 4 still challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner/respondent No. 1 dated 21.2.2012 by way of CWP No. 6927 of 2012 which was dismissed in limine on 18.4.2012. However, respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 28.5.2012 allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 4 observing that vide order dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the petitioner herein was ordered to be evicted from the land along with his Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 ['for short 'the 1961 Act'] and the appeal filed by the petitioner and his brothers etc. was dismissed by the Collector, Narnaul on 26.10.2005 which has become final. The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 by way of statutory appeal under Section 51 (5) of the Act which has been dismissed on 3.7.2012 hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not in unauthorized possession on the Panchayat land as suggested by respondent No. 4 and held by respondents No. 1 and 2 because he has since been shifted from the last six years to his ancestral house which is situated within the limits of 'lal dora' of the village. It is further submitted that the petitioner had even served a notice under Section 24(1) of the Act upon his brother to remove his illegal possession from the land- of the Gram Panchayat on 24.11.2041. He also held meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 13.1.2012 in which it was discussed that despite the notice issued under Section 24( 1) of the Act the encroachment by brother of the petitioner has not been removed, therefore, it was decided by a resolution that matter be reported to the BDPO with a request that the encroachment may be removed with the help of Police. It is further submitted that under Section 175(l)(n) of the Act, the unauthorized possession should be during the period of one year preceding the date of election but in the present case, after the order was passed for eviction in 2005, no action was taken by the Panchayat for taking possession for over a period of five years and as soon as the petitioner became the Sarpanch, the present motivated application has been filed through Budh Singh under Section 177 of the Act, for his removal. He further submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the ration card and report of the BDPO dated 27.6.2011 in which it has come that the petitioner is residing in the ancestral house which is situated in the 'lal dora' of the Village and is not in possession of the house which is constructed in Khasra No. 41//8 measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas, which is situated on the pahad (hill). 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the petitioner is very much in possession of the house constructed on the Panchayat land and has referred to para 3 of the reply filed by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 177 of the Act, before respondent No. 2, in which he had averred that in the family partition, the houses in the lal dora have come to the share of Indraj and he has been residing there". From this averment, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has tried to argue that if house in the 'lal dora' has come to the share of In-draj/petitioner in family partition then his possession should also be considered on the house which is constructed outside the 'lal dora' on Khasra No. 41//8 situated on the Gair Mumkin Pahad (hill). 5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Section 175 of the Act provides disqualifications of the Sarpanch and Section 175(1) (n) of the Act says that no person shall be allowed to continue as a Sarpanch who is or has been during the period of one year preceding the date of election, in unauthorized possession of land or other immoveable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. Section 177 of the Act provides that if any member of the Gram Panchayat was suffering from any of the disqualification mentioned in Section 175 of the Act at the time of his election or acquires any disqualification mentioned in Section 175 of the Act after the election during his tenure, he can be declared to be disqualified from continuing to be a member and his office shall become vacant which shall be decided by the Director. 7. The question involved in this case is thus, as to whether the alleged unauthorized possession of the petitioner over the land of the Panchayat in dispute can be considered for a period beyond one year preceding the date of his election and whether the complainant is required to lead cogent evidence to prove unauthorized possession? 8. A bare reading of Section 175(1)(n) suggest that a member of the Panchayat may be a Panch or Sarpanch would acquire disqualification if he is found to be in unauthorized possession of land or other immovable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Par-ishad, during the period of one year preceding the date of his election. The literal meaning of this provision is thus that a person who is desirous for election to the office of the Gram Panchayat, is in unauthorized possession of the Panchayat property, may vacate at least one year before the date of election in order to become eligible otherwise if he continues to be in unauthorized possession within the period of one year preceding the date of election, he would earn disqualification. 9. The case of the petitioner is that in the report of the BDPO, it has come that the petitioner is residing in the house situated in the 'lal dora' of the village from the last six years which has been testified by the co-villagers and not rebutted by respondent No. 4 with cogent evidence except for presuming that since there was a family partition in which the petitioner is alleged to have acquiring the house situated in 'lal dora', therefore, his possession over the house which is situated in Killa No. 41//8 outside the 'lal dora' has also been presumed because the said property was also put in the common hotchpotch for the purpose of partition. 10. 10. In my view, the principle of actual physical possession is being stretch too far by respondent No. 4 while asking the Court to presume about the possession of the petitioner over the house in question allegedly constructed on the Panchayat land. Moreover, the petitioner hi e a given notices under Section 24(1) on 24.11.2011 and also passed resolution dated 13.1.2012 to take action against his family members who are alleged to be in possession of the Pancha at land by referring the matter to the BDPO for police help which shows that the petitioner is not conniving with his family members for the purpose of retaining possession on the Panchayat land from where they have been ordered to be evicted under the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act. Thus, in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that possession of the brothers of the petitioner over Khasra No. 41//8 measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marias cannot be considered to be the possession of the petitioner for attracting the provisions of Section 175(l)(n) and 177 of the Act under which he has been removed, having been disqualified to retain the post of Sarpanch. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. 11. Before parting with this order, this Court cannot close its eyes to the factual position. The petition filed under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act, in respect of the land of the Gram Panchayat, has been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner while exercising the power of AC 1st Grade, on 17.1.2005 and the respondents therein have been ordered to be evicted. The said order has been upheld by the Collector, Mahendergarh vide his order dated 26.10.2005. The eviction order has become final between the parties, even notices under Section 24(1) of the Act have been served upon the encroachers and the Panchayat has passed resolution informing the BDPO, Nangal Chaudhary, to take appropriate action for the purpose of eviction even with the Police help but so far order of eviction has not been executed. 12. Thus, I direct the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh at Narnaul to supervise the execution proceedings of the order of eviction in order to retrieve 2 kanals 13 marlas of land, found to be in unauthorized possession of Matadeen etc. 12. Thus, I direct the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh at Narnaul to supervise the execution proceedings of the order of eviction in order to retrieve 2 kanals 13 marlas of land, found to be in unauthorized possession of Matadeen etc. as alleged by the petitioner. The exercise of taking possession shall be completed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Mahendergarh at Narnaul within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The office is directed to send forthwith a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, for the purpose of compliance.