2004 Supreme(P&H) 1212
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Binod Kumar Roy, CJ. with G.S. Singhvi and V.K. Bali, JJ.
Darshan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 14494 of 2002
Decided On : 1 November, 2004
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Gumber, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:Mr. Randhir Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 5:Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate.
The broader interpretation of the expression 'any person aggrieved' in Section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1924 was established, allowing the complainant to file an appeal.
Headnote:
Appeal - Validity of Financial Commissioner's order - Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1924 - Section 51
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, challenged the order disqualifying him and declaring his office vacant. The complaint alleged unauthorized occupation of panchayat land. Enquiry was initiated, and the petitioner was suspended and reinstated. The Financial Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 5, disqualifying the petitioner and declaring the office vacant.
Finding of the Court:
The Financial Commissioner's order allowing the appeal and disqualifying the petitioner was upheld. The court over-ruled the preliminary objection that the appeal by respondent No. 5 was not maintainable.
Issues: Validity of the Financial Commissioner's order, maintainability of the appeal by respondent No. 5
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal under Section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1924 was maintainable at the instance of the complainant (respondent No. 5). The broader interpretation of the expression 'any person aggrieved' was adopted.
Final Decision: The court over-ruled the Division Bench judgment and held that the appeal by respondent No. 5 was maintainable. The writ petition was directed to be placed before an appropriate Division Bench.
Binod Kumar Roy, C.J.- The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Seonsar, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, State Haryana assails validity of the order dated July 31, 2002 passed by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to the Government Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh as contained in Annexure P-11 allowing the Appeal No. 81 of 2002 filed by respondent No. 5 and disqualifying him (the petitioner) to continue as Sarpanch and consequently declared his office to be vacant. While allowing the Appeal, the Financial Commissioner has also over-ruled the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 has no locus to file his Appeal.
2. Vide order dated 27.2.2003 this writ petition was admitted for its hearing by a Full Bench, which is reproduced below :-
"Whether a person, at whose instance enquiry is initiated against the Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Panchayat under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1924 (for short, the Act), can file an appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by petitioner-Darshan Singh for quashing order dated 31.7.2002 (Annexure P-11) passed by Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department (hereinafter described as the Financial Commissioner).
The facts :
On receipt of the complaint made by respondent No. 5-Ramesh Kumar (a resident of Village Seonsar) with the allegation that the petitioner who was holding the office of Sarpanch, has unauthorisedly occupied panchayat land measuring 16 Marlas comprising Khewat No. 158, Khasra No. 48/20-21. Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 3) got a preliminary enquiry conducted through Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pehowa. On receipt of the report of preliminary enquiry, respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner proposing to take action for his suspension under Section 51(1)(b) of the Act. In his reply, the petitioner denied the allegation of unauthorisely occupying the panchayat land. After considering his reply, respondent No. 3 suspended the petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2001 (Annexure P-3). By another order of the same date, she ordered regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and appointed Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Pehowa as enquiry officer. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 22.3.2001 (Annexure P-5). However, during the pendency of the enquiry, respondent No. 3 had reinstated the petitioner vide his order dated 18.11.2001. Respondent No. 5 challenged that order by filing an appeal which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure P-7).
In the meanwhile, the enquiry officer submitted report dated 31.12.2001 with the finding that the Sarpanch had sown and reaped the wheat and rice crop in the land measuring 16 Marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat but there is no mention of the same in the khasra girdawari about description of the said land either in the name of the Sarpanch or his relative. Acting on the enquiry report, respondent No. 3 passed order dated 22.3.2002 virtually exonerating the petitioner, as is evident from the following extract of that order :
"As per the above report, the Sarpanch has sown the wheat and rice crops at the time of complaint in the land measuring 16 marlas but now the Sarpanch has extinguished his possession over the said piece of land and the land in question is lying vacant at the spot. Keeping in view this position, I, Abiyax Likhi, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra while exercising the powers conferred under Section 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 issue orders to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pehowa to determine the loss suffered by the Sarpanch by sowing the crops in the land of the gram panchayat measuring