SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(HP) 684

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA, J. & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, JJ.
SH. KARTAR CHAND.
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P & ORS.
Respondents
CWP No. 1571 of 2009
Decided on 6-8-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:S/Shri R.M. Bisht and Mr.Vikas Rathore Dy. Advocate Generals for
respondents No.1 to 3.Mr.Adarsh Kumar Vashist, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 6.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving encroachment on government land for disqualification from contesting Panchayati Raj elections.

Headnote:

Election Disqualification - Panchayati Raj Institutions - H.P Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 122(1)(c) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 122(1)(c) of the H.P Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualifies individuals who have encroached upon government land from contesting Panchayati Raj elections. The court emphasized the importance of proving encroachment and upheld the disqualification based on the evidence presented.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, but an election petition was filed challenging his election on the grounds of encroachment on government land. The authorized officer and Deputy Commissioner confirmed the disqualification, leading to the present writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented proved the petitioner's encroachment on government land, leading to his disqualification from contesting the election.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was an encroacher on government land and thus disqualified from being elected as the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving encroachment and upheld the disqualification based on the evidence presented, stating that the disqualification provision in Section 122(1)(c) is a statutory provision.

Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the disqualification of the petitioner was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.-This petition is directed against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 9.4.2007 whereby he has confirmed the order passed by the authorized officer, i.e., Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jaisinghpur setting aside the election of the petitioner for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Ashapuri.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in Himachal Pradesh were held in the month of December, 2005. The petitioner was one of the candidates, contesting for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Ashapuri. Respondents No.4 to 6 had also submitted their nomination forms for the said post. Respondent No.4 filed objections before the Assistant Registrar praying that the nomination form for the petitioner be rejected since he is disqualified to contest the elections as he has encroached upon Government land. These objections were rejected. Polling was conducted on 22.12.2005 and the petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Ashapuri.

3. Thereafter, respondents No.4 to 6 filed an election petition before the authorized officer under Section 175 of the H.P Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenging the election of the petitioner. The main ground of challenge was that the respondent has encroached upon the land belonged to the State Government bearing Khasra No.280 and 164/1 measuring 0-00-82 hectares located in Mahal Ropri, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra. It was further alleged that in the year 2002 the Government of Himachal Pradesh had framed a scheme for regularization of encroachments. The writ petitioner had applied for regularization of the encroachment by submitting a form duly signed by him. Alongwith this form, a declaration was duly filed by the petitioner that he has encroached upon Government land. In view of this application of the petitioner, it was submitted that he is an encroacher and was disqualified from contesting the election in view of the bar contained in Section 122(1)(c) of the Act which reads as follows:

“122. Disqualifications.-(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen, as and for being, an office bearer, of a Panchayat-

(a) & (b) xxxxxx

(c) if he or any of his family member(s) has encroached upon any land belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of, the State Government, a Municipality, a Panchayat or a Co-operative Society unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date on which he or any of his family member, as the case may be, is ejected there from or ceases to be the encroacher; or”

4. Reply was filed to the election petition and the writ petitioner denied that he had encroached upon Government land. He also denied that he had ever applied for regularization of the encroachment. According to him, he had not signed the form which has been alleged to have signed by him. After framing of issues, the main issue framed was whether the petitioner is an encroacher on Government land and thus qualified from being elected to the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.

5. Evidence was led by the parties. In support of their case, respondents No.4 to 6 examined Om Parkash, Patwari as PW/1 who stated on oath that he had sold application form No.0104607 (Ext.P/3) to the petitioner for regularization. According to him, Khasra Nos.280 and 164/1 measuring 0-00-82 hectares are in possession of the present petitioner and he has constructed shops and cowsheds thereupon. He had also prepared the copies of the Jamabandi and Tatimas (Exts.P/5 to P/7) attached with the form. In the cross-examination Om Parkash admitted that the forms were not signed by the writ petitioner in his presence nor any case of encroachment was registered against the petitioner.

6. PW/2 Parkash Chand, Office Kanungo, Tehsil Jaisinghpur stated that the respondent had applied for regularization of encroachment of Government land and that this app









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top