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

1991 Supreme(P&H) 971

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Mongia, J.
Baj Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab Through The Joint Secretary-cum-director, Rural Development And Panchayats Department, Government Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 16260 of 1989,
Decided On : OCTOBER 10, 1991

Bachat land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and cannot be the subject of misuse of office by a Sarpanch.

Headnote:

PANCHAYAT - REMOVAL OF SARPANCH - PUNJAB GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 102(1) AND 102(2) - CHARGES OF MISUSE OF OFFICE BY GRABBING GRAM PANCHAYAT LAND - LAND IN DISPUTE HELD TO BE BACHAT LAND AND NOT VESTING IN GRAM PANCHAYAT - REMOVAL ORDER SET ASIDE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, Baj Singh, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chottian Kalan in 1974. Allegations were made against him for illegally grabbing Gram Panchayat land by getting sale deeds in favor of his relatives. An enquiry was conducted under Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayats Act, 1952, and charges were found against him. A show-cause notice was issued under Section 102(2) of the Act, and he was removed from the office of Sarpanch. His appeal against the removal order was also dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land in dispute was Bachat land and did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The mutations entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat were tampered with, and there was no evidence that the petitioner had done the tampering. The court held that the charge of misuse of office by grabbing Gram Panchayat land could not be proved since the land never belonged to the Gram Panchayat.

Issues: 1. Whether the land in dispute was Bachat land or Gram Panchayat land? 2. Whether the petitioner misused his office as Sarpanch by grabbing Gram Panchayat land?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Gunia Majri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 342, which held that Bachat land should be re-distributed amongst the proprietors pro rata. 2. The court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 927, which held that land utilized for the income of the Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be land reserved for common purposes and would not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch.

Judgment

R.S.Mongia, J.

1. In the Panchayat elections held in 1974, petitioner Baj Singh was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chottian Kalan, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot. Prior to the election of the petitioner as the Sarpanch, there were satna other persons who were elected as the Sarpanches.

2. A complaint was made against the petitioner that he had illegally grabed the land of the Gram Panchayat by getting sale deeds in favour of his close relatives. Even the mutations had been sanctioned in favour of the purchasers. This was reported by the District Development & Panchayats Officer, Faridkot on 3rd September, 1987. On these allegations it was alleged that the petitioner had misused his office as Sarpanch. A regular enquiry against the petitioner was ordered under Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayats Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A regular enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar. According! to the Naib Tahsildar, the following charges stood proved against the petitioner :

"That Baj Singh, Sarpanch and some other members (Now Ex. members) in connivance with the employees of Revenue Department have distributed the land in his and other co-villagers names, which was mutated in favour of Shamlat Deh vide mutations No. 4521 and 4522 with the orders of A.C.-II, dated 30-4-68 measuring 5 Kanals 9 Marias and 133 Kanals 53 Marias (Total 137 Kanals 4 Marias). "No action was taken by Shri Baj Singh, Sarpanch in this regard." On the basis of the above allegations, a show-cause notice under Section 102 (2) of the Act, was issued to the petitioner, as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Sarpanch and disqualified from contesting the election of the Panchayat for the next five years. A reply was submitted by the petitioner and he was also given a personal hearing on 21st December, 1988."

3. During the course of personal hearing before the joint Director, Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Director of Panchayats) the petitioner had submitted that he had not distributed the Panchayat land amongst him or his relatives. The Execution and registration of deeds had been done in the Registrars office by the owners of the land. It was objected to by him but after he failed, he stopped the purchasers to enter upon the land. His co-villagers took the case to the Judicial Court, where he contested, but since there was no entry in favour of the Panchayat in the revenue record, the case was decided against the Panchayat. He had filed an appeal against the said order in the Court of District Judge. As there was no ownership of Panchayat recorded in the revenue record, the appeal went against the Panchayat. It was further stated that during the consolidation some land had been reserved for common purposes, which had been got pro rata from the landowners. After the use of the land for common purposes some area was left which was shown in the revenue record as Mushtarka Malkan in the column of ownership. On account of this entry in the revenue record, the co-villagers started selling and purchasing their shares and when this was being done, he had informed the Block Development & Panchayat Officer. About the interpolation of record, he had stated that the mutations were entered in the year 1968 and neither he was Sarpanch during that period nor a Panch. This record was not in his possession. The pleas of the petitioner were rejected and he was ordered to be removed from the office of the Sarpanch vide order of the Joint Director, Panchayats, dated 2nd February, 1989 (Annexure P. 10). The appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal was also dismissed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, vide order dated 17th October, 1989 (Annexure P. 11). The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders, Annexures P. 10 and P. 11.

4. Before adverting to the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it m











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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