JUDGMENT

A.B. Chaudhari, J. - By the present petition, the petitioner-Vijay has sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri in Election Petition No.36 of 2016 titled as 'Vijay versus Ajit Singh and others' by which the said election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

FACTS

2. The petitioner-Vijay filed election petition under Section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act') for declaring the election of respondent No.3-Ajit Singh son of Dhanpat (respondent No.l in Election Petition No.36 of 2016) as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Kari Rupa (Dass) held on 10.01.2016 as illegal and invalid on the ground that he was not eligible to contest the election because he has been in unauthorised possession of land comprising Khasra No.84 Gair Mumkin Firni and Khasra No.lll Gair Mumkin Gali which is under the ownership of Gram Panchayat Kari Rupa. He further stated in his election petition that the Gram Panchayat of the said village Kari Rupa Dass was one but was bifurcated two months before the elections. Respondent No.3-Ajit Singh was in unauthorised occupation of the said land under ownership of Gram Panchayat and therefore, was disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch.

3. Respondent No.3-Ajit Singh appeared before the trial Court and opposed the election petition while denying the allegation regarding encroachment or unauthorised occupation as alleged by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the said election petition. The trial Court framed six issued and thereafter, recorded the evidence of the parties so also exhibited the documents produced by the parties. Finally, the trial Court held that there was no merit in the election petition and thus, dismissed it. Hence, this petition.

ARGUMENTS

4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the proved documents on record in order to buttress the contention that respondent No.3-Ajit Singh was in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to Gram Panchayat Kari Rupa. He also relied on demarcation report dated 13.04.2016 Exhibit PI to Exhibit P6, in document Exhibit P5, and submitted that Ajit Singh and his brother Rajesh have been shown in unauthorised occupation of Khasra No.84 and Khasra No.III. He also submitted that Exhibit D4-Copy of Ration Card clearly indicated Ajit Singh residing in House No.265 while Rajesh alias Balwan was residing in House No.266, i.e. in separate house. Learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner by voluminous documentary evidence proved the factum of Ajit Singh being encroacher on the said piece of land belonging to Gram Panchayat Kari Rupa as per Demarcation report of the competent officer apart from Jamabandi documents filed on record clearly indicating the above fact. Learned counsel then submitted that Ajit Singh being in occupation of said land was not entitled to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch and accordingly, objection was also taken. But the trial Court has relied on a decision in the case of Smt. Zarina vs. State of Haryana through Financial Commissioner and another. 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 697, which decision is not relevant in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janabai versus Additional Commissioner and others. Civil Appeal No.6832 of 2018, decided on 19.09.2018. He submitted that the present petition is therefore, liable to be allowed and election of respondent No.3-Ajit Singh to the post of Sarpanch is liable to be set aside with a further direction to hold fresh election for the said post.

5. Per contra, contesting respondent No.3-Ajit Singh vehemently opposed the election petition and filed his written statement and submitted that the petition was not maintainable in the absence of necessary parties etc. and that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file election petition. Respondent No.3-Aj